Reversing accident - need some advice regarding counterclaiming

• 1
• 2

• • 

    [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 11:07

    Agree with this in the sense that the other driver is at fault, but for an entirely different crime that the OP is at fault for.

  • 

    winterseed on 22/10/2015 - 13:20

    Private property though? I don't think road rules apply unless you're on the road or roadside. I also don't see how the other driver wasn't parked legally even if that requirement did apply.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 22/10/2015 - 22:15

      If it's a public carpark, it would be classified as a road-related area.

      Each state's road rules will have something to the effect of "Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related areas" and define a 'road related area' as "an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles".

      Most of the road rules (e.g. for drink driving, seatbelts, and mobile phones) apply to publicly accessible car parks even if they are on private property.

      • 

        winterseed on 26/10/2015 - 02:04

        Seatbelts?! I get where you're coming from but that sounds wrong to me. Maybe I should check the definition of road related area but I thought the road rules were enforceable in carparks on public land but not carparks on private land. I thought supermarket carparks were typically privately owned. That was just an assumption, though.

        Drink driving is different though. If you're drunk near a car anywhere I think you're screwed, even in your own garage.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 26/10/2015 - 07:10

        Private land can be public space and not all public land is public space.

        A road related area includes "open to or used by the public" and designated for use by cyclists or animals or for driving, riding or parking vehicles.

        In determining whether a road or area was “open to or used by the public”, the SA Supreme Court stated (PDF)

        • It is not necessary that the land be publically owned or that there be a public right of access of use.
        • In the case of private land, the phrase “open to…..the public” refers to an invitation or licence expressly or impliedly extended to members of the public by the private occupier. The question is not whether the land is physically open to the public, although the existence or non-existence of a physical barrier to entry may be one factor in assessing whether an invitation is extended to the public.
        • The mere fact that a fee is charged or that the area is used only by members of the public with a particular interest (for example swimming or natural history in the case of public pools and museums respectively) does not of itself establish that it is not “open to the public”.
        • In the case of private land, the phrase “used by the public” refers to actual use (even without the permission of the occupier) by the public, but not to mere use by specific invitees or to an isolated use by a member or members of the public.

        The police do fine people for not wearing a seat belt on private land, eg Victorian Bunnings carpark and McDonald's drive-thru.

  • 

    RyanMK on 22/10/2015 - 14:27

    Where was it mentioned that the other driver wasn't parked legally?

• 

  Hirolol on 22/10/2015 - 14:43

  Sooo any update?

• 

  lplau on 22/10/2015 - 17:22

  Do you have witnesses or video proof of him using his phone?

  If you don't then it's all he says she says.
  Can't do anything about it.

  If you do then give it to the police you can get him a fine lol.

  If you were both reversing at the same time then it is actually both of your fault according to insurance agency. Unless you have proof as to who started reversing first.

  Rule of thumb don't admit being wrong and let the car insurance fight for you.

• 

  chefdillu on 22/10/2015 - 19:46

  +1

  Simple Mate you both exchange details and don't talk to the other driver ever again. he needs to deal with his own insurance company from now.
  All you need is to pay your insurance company your part of the access and that is it, its then up to the insurance company to see what needs to be repaired when his car is assessed.
  Also you are not responsible for a courtesy car for him, its up to his policy whether he has chosen this option when taking out his insurance

• 

  IdBuyThat4aDollar on 22/10/2015 - 21:20

  +7

  Having worked in insurance, its clear cut you're at fault. Not even worth considering otherwise.

  The mobile phone angle is not worth pursuing. First you have to prove that he actually was using his phone, second even if you have this proof you have to then prove that this is what caused this particular accident. Doesn't matter if he was breaking the law, that doesn't mean that caused the collision. As an example, I could rear end someone and obviously its my fault…but I can't say "actually the other guy wasn't wearing his seatbelt…he's at fault". Doesn't mater if he was breaking the law, that had nothing to do with me rear-ending him.

  Also, the other person is well within he's rights to claim reasonable costs for a rental car while the car is up for repair (its not reasonable if for example he hires a ferrari and expects you to pay for this). Don't listen to what others say here. He may not have a rental option on his policy, but if he pushes this with them his insurance company may advise him to take a car rental out of his own pocket, and to keep the receipts so they can try to recover these costs later (from you).

  Don't bother dealing with him directly if he's lodged an insurance claim. He's insurance will be in contact with you. If you want to speed up the process in hearing from he's insurance company, you can call them (assumming you know who he's insured with) and give them he's claim number (if he gave this to you) or his details so they can find he's policy and if there's claim attached.

  Best thing for you to do is see how much damages you're up for when he's insurance company sends you a letter of demand. If its less than your insurance excess just pay it out of your pocket. You may even get a call from their recoveries department, and be able to negotiate a slightly lower cost - although for a small claim not in the thousands, they probably don't have a lot of room to budge. Typically they might lower the amount they ask for, if they feel this will speed up the process (say for example your a pensioner, it may be in their interest to lower the settled amount by x amount instead of having to use a debt collector which has additional cost)

  If the amount of damages is more than your excess, then lodge a claim through your insurance. You have something like 7 years to lodge a claim anyway, so don't think you have to contact your insurance straight away.

  If you plan to repair damage to your car as well, and you have full comprehensive, then just lodge a claim anyway.

  EDIT: I'm making the assumption here the other guy wasn't reversing as well.

  • 

    Lucious on 22/10/2015 - 23:08

    +2

    I was going to say basically all this (thanks for saving me the effort!).

    Depending on who they go through to hire a car, they may try to rip you off big time (though that's more prominent with hire car companies in Sydney and Melbourne). Such hire car companies will present very convincing arguments as to why they had to charge an exorbitant amount, but the fact is when claiming for financial loss against an at fault party, the not at fault party has a legal responsibility to mitigate (minimise) their loss. In order to prove they could have hired a car cheaper go to https://www.drivenow.com.au/#/home and put in a close location then select the cheapest vehicle of a similar size to the vehicle you hit. I suggest putting it in for a week and doing this every week, saving a screen shot of the quote until you know that they have had their vehicle repaired. When you are approached to reimburse hire costs, compare to the quotes you have retained and work out how cheap they could have hired a vehicle for and offer based on that (unfortunately you will need to include the excess reduction). The reason it is important to save the screen shots is you would need to prove the vehicles were actually available to hire in order to nullify their counter argument of "you can't prove that vehicle was available at the time required" which they will pull out of you were to use a current quote. Good luck.

    Source: 10 years managing insurance motor claims!

    • 

      zolinger on 04/11/2015 - 01:23

      Thanks. I am going to be so nailed having just caught onto this

• 

  lint on 23/10/2015 - 09:52

  +2

  If you have insurance, just let it go through with your insurance company. Tell your company your side of the story and they'll work out what they're liable for and what his company should pay for themselves.

  Unfortunately, a lot of times these sorts of things are counterintuitive.

  A couple years ago, my dad was reversing out of a car park while another car was doing the same. My dad saw that the other car and stopped, while the other car continued to reverse and hit my dad's car. On exchanging details, my dad asked the other driver if she was wearing contacts as it was one of the conditions of her licence. She wasn't. Went through with insurance and they said both drivers were equally at fault as they were both reversing, despite my dad having stopped and the other driver not driving to licence conditions.

  Last year my sister was putting her daughter in her car at a car park when another car blindly drove into the space next to hers and hit the open door. Insurance said both drivers were at fault because the car park is considered a public road and you shouldn't have the door open when it can obstruct traffic.

  Class A bullshit, but what can you do?

• 

  2Poor4Ozb on 23/10/2015 - 14:50

  were you too busy checking him out on his phone? and not the slowly moving car. The only evident is you backed into his car thus it your fault. Learn from your mistake move on. There are as many idiots in the car park as there are on the roads

• 

  MattyD on 23/10/2015 - 14:54

  +3

  OPs attitude is a perfect example of what's wrong with the world today.

  If you're reversing you should be looking backwards and around and doing so with enough caution to anticipate changes around you. You didn't: you reversed into someone.

  Suck it up champ and cop it like a grown up. Pay your excess etc and let your insurance company sort it out.

  For God's sake stop trying to find someone else to blame for your mistakes. And to you lot trying to help OP find loopholes: you'd be the first to cry foul if some moron backed into your spouse/child/parent/friend and tried this cr*p.

  • 

    T1OOO on 23/10/2015 - 18:36

    Sadly your right. Just Coz he's an ozb user dosnt mean we should be trying to get them out of being at fault. I'd be pissed of that happened to me and he hit me then had the nerve to try get out of it.

  • 

    Ughhh on 23/10/2015 - 21:17

    +2

    Funny if the other driver happened to be a user on this forum too, posted their story without referring to this tread and the same users here gave opposite 'advice's' to them.

  • 

    TheOneWhoKnocks on 25/10/2015 - 16:28

    Yes, typically in most of these types of posts, the OP is actually not at fault and we're used to showing sympathy for them. In this case it is quite different.

• 

  Mattec078 on 23/10/2015 - 17:06

  -1

  Also because he demanded that you go through insurance he cant then demand to have you pay for his car rental while his car is being repaired as thats for him to take up with his Insurance - And i believe hire cars arent included in alot of these policies. If you had settled out without the help of insurance then he might have a claim i am guessing

  • 

    stealthdirect on 23/10/2015 - 19:38

    +1

    Hire Car is often not included for the at-fault, hire care is ALWAY available if you are not at fault.

    • 

      Mattec078 on 29/10/2015 - 17:03

      but isnt that up to the not at fault driver to chase up with his insurance ??? and then they can chase the other insurance ??? that's how i thought it would work

• 

  neonlight on 24/10/2015 - 01:29

  +1

  Regardless of the other driver was on phone or not. He was stationary and you were not hence its your fault. Just take it as a lesson go thru insurance and move on. You cannot prove to insurance he was on mobile during the accident hence you can't counter claim and he was paying attention you weren't.

  Hate to tell you this what happened to you was exactly what happened to me being the rear car. Someone reversed into me and I was not on the phone and horn the front driver. The front driver didn't want to pay up just like you, he was a student didn't have his P plate up. He did not have insurance and I had third party not at fault claim as I was stationary and he wasn't so I had rights to claim under that clause. I had photos to prove he didn't have p plates and reversed into me. I let insurance to chase him after I tried to be helpful to get him to pay up with a quote that he refused to pay.

  People like you disgust me. Made a mistake and don't want to pay up and now asking for advice to counter.

  Grow up and learn!

  The only thing you can argue is the car rental but that's not up to you to decide, it's the insurance not you, unless you aren't covered.

  These days lack of courtesy on the road and no politeness or even not admitting faults to get away with these things really sickens me. Its really sad this is happened to young drivers too its like they have poor education with all these dodgy practices. Where is your honesty? Do you not learn from your mistake? Can you not take it as a life lesson? Its only a small price to pay.

  • 

    zolinger on 04/11/2015 - 01:19

    That's unfortunate. I hope you managed to catch up to the student. it's a shame he didn't admit to fault and tried to dodge it, but hopefully next time you can contain your own prejudices

• 

  lplau on 24/10/2015 - 11:01

  Its interesting though. I was recently in a accident which is very similar.
  Post accident (with no information) -
  Car A - Damaged Front Left Corner
  Car B - Damaged Rear

  Both cars engaging in reversing.

  The insurance agencies determined it was both car's fault.
  I was Car A, I was clearly on the road when the other car rammed into me, however insurance agency said still at fault due to possibility that you were reversing and turning.

  Car B told the insurance agency that Car A was reversing and Car B was reversing.

  There was no witnesses or video footage.

  I got the insurance agency to pass the diagrams to the repairer and the repairer confirmed that my story must be correct (due to damage positions) that I was on the road already and about to drive off, therefore it was actually Car B fault as he reversed into me.

  So in the end, logic sometimes does prevail…..

• 1
• 2