Car Accident - Who Is at Fault?

Lhelp my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 13:24
Last edited 27/03/2022 - 19:56 by 1 other user

Who's at fault?

Car 1 had reversed from their driveway into the 2 way street and had come to a complete stop behind Car 2.

Car 2 was parked in an angled car park and began reversing while Car 1 had momentarily stopped in the street after reversing to check their surroundings (for cars pulling out of parking spots) before driving off.

2-way street can be busy on weekends, with many 'weekend drivers' filling up all of the parking spaces (that are usually empty) to go to nearby market and avoid paying a small fee for parking. Usually reversing out of driveway is very easy, with no vehicles in the street.

Car 2 reverses very quickly, without checking blindspot and impacts with Car 1 while Car 1 was stationary.
Note: Car 2 has a large blindspot. Car 2 also appears to have damage from a similar incident on rear passenger door.

The time period that Car 1 was stationary to check surroundings and Car 2 had reversed and collided was approximately 1 second.

MS Paint & damage to Car 1 & 2:

I only have 3rd Party insurance and the damage caused to my vehicle will likely be a higher cost than the car's value (as it's an imported Japanese car). My insurance have said that because the other party is at fault, I need to make a claim via their insurance. My policy only covers me in the event that the other party doesn't have insurance. However, they will defend against a claim from the other party's insurance, but this will cost me a lot in excess.

Update:
I uploaded high resolution photos of the damage to both cars. Maybe someone can determine which car was moving based on this.

Update 2:
I uploaded photos of the damage Car 1, as close as possible to show the paint. Maybe someone can determine which car was moving based on this.

Update 3:
My insurance advised to contact the other party, so that I can file a claim against their insurance (from the case number). Apparently the version of events that Car 2 told to their insurance was: 'they reversed from the parking spot and were about to drive off, Car 1 reversed into them"
I don't see how this is believable when the impact occurred between the rear of Car 1 to the drive-side rear of Car 2, while Car 2 was within the car space.

Update 4:
People have asked - why didn't I have comprehensive insurance?
Car 1 is a grey-import from Japan. Market value may be $6000. The quotes I received for comprehensive insurance for this car, was $3000 as it falls into the same category as a sports car. This is 50% the value of the car. 3rd party insurance was 5% the value of the car.

Update 5:
I'm going to contact my insurance company again and state that Car 2 has provided a different version of events to their insurer.

Poll Options

  • 6
    Car 1 (purple in MS Paint, white in accident photos)
  • 192
    Car 2 (blue in MS Paint, blue in accident photos)
Automotive

Comments

  • FloatingPoint on 26/03/2022 - 18:51
    +5

    No point to vote.
    Unless you have a reverse dashcam footage, I bet it will be 50/50 fault.

    • help my insurance on 26/03/2022 - 20:00

      Unfortunately I don't have a dash cam. Given that both parties are claiming the other is at fault I'm sure insurance companies will make both pay.

    • stumo on 27/03/2022 - 12:26
      +2

      Doesn't even need to be reverse cam. A front dashcam would show the car is stopped, before impact from the moving car.

      • CMH on 28/03/2022 - 03:11
        +1

        I was about to say the exact same thing.

        Although reverse cam would've been more satisfying to watch.

      • Euphemistic on 28/03/2022 - 05:52
        +1

        Front only wouldn’t show what the other vehicle was doing prior to the impact. It may not show that one vehicle was moving well before the other starred reversing, or that it had reverse lights on, a sign that you should not start moving.

  • Eeples on 26/03/2022 - 20:55
    +1

    Car 2 as you tell the story. (Although staying in the middle of the road 'checking' sounds idiotic).

    But, Car 1 may have reversed in to Car 2 or they may have reversed in to each other. (I mean why should Car 1's account be considered less likely than OP's account?)

    Did any of the drivers turn their heads when they were reversing? Doesn't seem like it.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 12:09

      Car 1 stopped momentarily. It would have been 1-2 seconds maximum while checking surroundings.

      Every car stops momentarily after reversing to check their surroundings.

      During that time Car 2 has reversed from the angled park very quickly.

      Car 1 did not even have time to press on their horn.

      Car 1 definitely had their head turned to reverse. It's unclear where Car 2 was looking.

      • Eeples on 27/03/2022 - 19:24

        Yes, that is your side of the story.

  • 82norm on 27/03/2022 - 09:36
    +3

    More the reason to get a dash cam, front and rear. For the record, car 2 is at fault. Period.

    • Herbse on 27/03/2022 - 14:57

      Dashcams should be mandatory on all cars

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 15:16
      +1

      I agree - very expensive lesson for me not to have a dash cam.

      • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 15:53

        Dash cam may not show enough in this case, unless the camera is pointed at the other car.

  • Leo Getz on 27/03/2022 - 10:57

    Car 2, which I gather is the Yaris, so when they repair it, also get the Blind Spot fixed that you noted in your photos.

    Why don't drivers reverse out fully into the line of traffic?
    Been driving a few so don't remember how it was taught and don't know how it is taught now.
    So many drivers reverse to a 45 then nearly take out their front end and rear end of the next parked car.

    Great diagram, there should be an award for that.

  • digitalbath on 27/03/2022 - 11:48

    Both appear to be bad drivers, but it is car 2's fault, if we are to believe the OP.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 14:04

      How can Car 1 improve their driving?

      Other people suggested always exit their driveway driving forwards.

      Car 1 beeps audibly when reversing.

      In this type of scenario, where Car 1 checks for hazards in all directions, they would press the horn if they noticed an accident about to occur. However, Car 2 reversed too quickly, within 1 second causing the collision.

    • CalmLemons on 27/03/2022 - 16:33

      I concur though. Even looking at the cars, I'm not sure why but they just imply terrible drivers. Old blue yaris or some ancient white blocky sedan.

      Car 2 reversing and is able to miss seeing a white sedan….

      • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 16:52

        I’m not sure why but they just imply terrible drivers

        It’s the angles and the steepness and the frequent speed-out-of-parking drivers. It’s the council, the government. It’s just the vibe.

      • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 17:24

        Car 1 is a box shaped Japanese car, so often Asian driver or younger person.

        I'm not sure whether you are trying to associate Asian with bad driving.

        Car 2 is a Toyota Yaris, often driven by elderly drivers.

        I think many people drive older vehicles and it doesn't mean that they are poor drivers.

        I think it's better to focus on how both drivers can improve to avoid the accident in future.

  • djmm on 27/03/2022 - 18:49

    Who hit who???

    • Euphemistic on 27/03/2022 - 18:52
      +1

      2 pages and no one thought to ask this?

      • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 19:05
        +1

        If you ask Car 1 (me), my recollection in the description is that I was stationary at the point of impact. The vehicle was in drive and only stopped momentarily to check surroundings again before driving off.

        Car 2 reversed into Car 1.

        However, the recollection of Car 2 is likely to be something like 'they enter their vehicle, they do not see Car 1 on the street, they look in their rear vision mirror and do not see Car 1 who has reversed into their blindspot. They begin reversing and have impact with Car 1.'

        • smartazz104 on 28/03/2022 - 08:10

          'they enter their vehicle, they do not see Car 1 on the street, they look in their rear vision mirror and do not see Car 1 who has reversed into their blindspot. They begin reversing and have impact with Car 1.'

          Saying 'they didn't see Car 1", isn't going to help their cause I imagine…

      • djmm on 27/03/2022 - 19:15

        Who hit who???

        • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 19:19
          +1

          Car 2 reversed into Car 1 who was stationary.

          However, the story that Car 2 tells their insurance is likely to be different.

  • zzzsianzzz on 27/03/2022 - 18:53

    agree some comments.

    the white car can reverse rear back into the driveway. will have less chance accident or no accident. the boxed japanese car have lower chassis to ground when i see?

    the op knows a problem area, on the busy 2 way and the bitumen at op place. reverse straight, other car drivers might not know which travel direction?

    directions on 2 way, angled parking and parallel parking, the other side cant rear park. high blindspots areas.

    but car 1 have the right way, or if stop in middle road too long, car 2 didnt wait or didnt see the blindspot and came out?

    i think two at fault?

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 19:16

      It's difficult for Car 1 to reverse into driveway without front bumper scraping on ground. I will try to reverse into driveway from now on.

      Street normally isn't a problem area. Usually the street is empty. On Saturday morning, it is full of people trying to avoid paying a small fee for parking, so they walk to the market nearby. I accept that it can be unpredictable when all parking spaces are full, but I wouldn't say that it is a problem area. The traffic in the street is very slow.

      My understanding is that Car 1 has right of carriageway, as they have already entered the road.

      When I say Car 1 stopped momentarily, I don't mean they stopped for a long time. Only 1 second to check surroundings.

      I don't think Car 2 considered that vehicles could exit their driveway. My assumption is they only looked in their rearview mirror for vehicles travelling on the street. They missed the blindspot entirely.

  • doctordv8 on 27/03/2022 - 19:34

    Give the whole story to your Insurer. When the other Insurer claims against yours, both stories will be scrutinized and sorted.

    Damage and paint scuff direction can be used as evidence and proof….to a point.

    But….. has the century old Road Law making reversing out of driveways been made legal in your state yet?

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 19:40

      This accident occurred in Victoria. It's not illegal to reverse out of a driveway.

      I'm confused - are you saying that there is an old road rule that people can't reverse out of their driveways?

      • BartholemewH on 28/03/2022 - 14:19

        It was first implemented because soccer mums would reverse their bullock trains over the median.

      • doctordv8 on 28/03/2022 - 21:13

        Back in the day yes it was a Rule. I think it is since reversed everywhere…but I did not search it so I asked the question..

        • pegaxs on 28/03/2022 - 22:22

          Back in the day…

          Please, let me know what year this was a rule and in what state, because I’ve been driving for 30+ years and it wasn’t around when I got my license.

          • Euphemistic on 29/03/2022 - 07:04

            @pegaxs: Ditto. Never heard of it before this thread.

            A century old law for driveways? A century ago no one had a car, let alone a driveway.

  • ItchyBallsack on 27/03/2022 - 21:02
    +1

    This is why I always reverse park in a parking spot. I refuse to park head in under any circumstances. This allows me to see my surroundings when I leave the space and is a much safer option. Parking head in should be banned.

    • help my insurance on 27/03/2022 - 21:32

      Some people like to put head in, some people like to put rear in.. I don't want to debate which is better.

      I don't think we should force people to park a certain way. Some vehicles need space of the tailgate to open wide, so entering from the front is easier.

      I think the issue is more to do with the speed that people travel in neighbourhood streets (traffic doesn't need to go faster than 20km/hr) and parking areas (10km/hr).

      In this situation the issue was caused by the speed of Car 2 reversing out of the angled parking space. If they began reversing at a slower speed, Car 1 could have driven out of the way, honked their horn, etc.

      • smartazz104 on 28/03/2022 - 08:11

        Some people like to put head in, some people like to put rear in.. I don't want to debate which is better.

        Yes, because reversing in is better; you don't need to look out for traffic when reversing in, but you do when reversing out. Plus, you know, the scenario you find yourself in would have been avoided had you reversed in.

        • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 08:40

          How would the scenario be avoided?

          When Car 1 enters the street, Car 2 is still going to reverse quickly from the parking space and collide with Car 1. The only difference is that it would have occurred at the front bumper of Car 1, resulting in more damage.

          • smartazz104 on 28/03/2022 - 11:07

            @help my insurance: Didn't car 1 reverse that far back so they could turn in whatever direction they needed to go? Driving straight out should avoid that, plus, you know, the driver would have Car 2 in their sights longer.

            • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 11:33

              @smartazz104: From my perspective, both scenarios would result in Car 1 being in the middle of the road when Car 2 starts quickly reversing out.

              Perhaps if driving forward, Car 1 would enter the street at a faster speed and spend less time checking surroundings.

              However, if in reverse, Car 1 has an audible beeping to alert people around that the car is reversing.

    • trapper on 28/03/2022 - 12:45

      It is not easy to reverse park into diagonal parking when the road is skinny.

      Also in a lot of carparks with diagonal parking there is really no space for this at all. Even if you do manage it then you have the same problem when you pull out facing against the direction of traffic.

      • Euphemistic on 28/03/2022 - 16:31

        From what I’ve seen most diagonal parking is signposted ether front to kerb or rear to kerb. Depends which way the spaces are painted on.

  • Warehouse on 27/03/2022 - 23:20
    +1

    Outside the box question: is the damage really worth the excess and all this commotion?

    It looks surface level and not structural, though I'm just assuming and not a mechanic etc…

    I'd spend the $300-$600 excess on a paint job or new bumper and move on. Or even nothing at all depending on the rest of the cars condition.

    Only worth the effort of the back and forth if there's a way to get a payout from the insurer without any out of pocket from yourself…

    • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 08:50

      Initially my thoughts were the same. A panel beater could push out the dent to the the bumper of Car 2 without much effort. Maybe some touch-up paint is needed or if lucky it's only in the clear coat.

      Car 2 has bounced off Car 1, so the rear bumper and tailgate are pushed in and cracked (as one is fibreglass). I'm unsure if the damage has bent the support bar that sits behind the bumper. These probably need replacing if they are touched. Given that the car is a grey-import, replacement bumper in the same colour paint is going to be expensive.

      When details were exchanged following the incident, both parties exchanged insurance details. Given that Car 2 has filed a claim with their insurance, I don't think there is an option to resolve the matter privately.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2022 - 06:54

    Let's look at it from the insurance, and other driver's perspective. If the driver and insurance accept fault, then they have to pay to fix both cars. If the insurance assumes both at fault, they only have to pay to fix one car. It's not too hard, given the ambiguity of fault, which side the insurance is likely to take.

    • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 08:56

      There are 2 insurance companies involved though.
      Insurance of Car 2 are going to have to pay for damage to Car 2 unless they can prove their driver is not at fault.
      If insurance of Car 1 investigate the damage to both cars, hopefully the paint scraping will show that Car 1 was stationary and Car 2 was moving quickly in reverse and therefore Car 2 is at fault.
      I agree that if there is ambiguity, not every insurance assessor is going to thoroughly investigate. Hopefully there is no ambiguity when the damage to both cars is taken into account.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2022 - 09:22

        I had a similar ambiguous fault claim once, and both insurers agreed to cover each other's cars. In this case, their insurer would take the excess and repair their car. Your insurer pays you nothing. That seems like the most likely outcome in this case.

        • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 09:29

          Does this mean that I have to pay the high excess of 3rd party insurance, which is more than the cost to repair Car 2, and their insurance doesn't repair my car?

          • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2022 - 09:30

            @help my insurance: If it played out as it did with my claim, they would pay their own excess, and repair their car. Your insurance would neither repair your car, nor require you to pay any excess. If there's a way for insurance to not pay, they will take it. That's why it seems like the most likely outcome to me.

      • lint on 28/03/2022 - 10:08
        +1

        hopefully the paint scraping will show that Car 1 was stationary and Car 2 was moving quickly in reverse and therefore Car 2 is at fault

        I think you're putting too much into what they can find from paint scrapings, lol.

        • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 10:25

          It's possible to work backwards from the positions of the vehicles and the damage to each car to determine who was moving and who was stationary.

          Whether insurance assessors go to this much effort is another issue altogether.

          A panel shop that looks at accident damage every day can usually tell what has happened from the damage to a vehicle.

          • lint on 28/03/2022 - 10:54

            @help my insurance: If the other party is claiming they reversed out first and stopped before being hit by you reversing into them, I don't believe you'd be able to tell which car was stationary or which car was moving based solely on the paint scrapings. You'd likely get the same paint scraping in either scenario.

            If they're claiming they were still parked and stationary and you reversed into their parked car, then yeah, I guess you might be able to tell based on where the damage is to either car.

  • lint on 28/03/2022 - 10:01

    Car 2 is at fault based on your description but you're kinda screwed and have a potential nightmare ahead of you since you don't have comprehensive insurance.

    • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 10:18

      What difference does comprehensive insurance make in this situation?

      • lint on 28/03/2022 - 10:41
        +1

        Well because you've only got third party insurance, your insurance company is not likely to bother pursuing damages to your own vehicle. Their only interest in this would be to make sure they don't have to pay out damages for the other vehicle if you're genuinely not at fault.

        With a lot of these incidents where both vehicles are entering traffic, when both parties are giving a different version of events, insurance companies will often settle that both were entering traffic at the same time and therefore both equally at fault. I believe that means with comprehensive cover both companies will cover repairs for the vehicle they've insured.

        In this scenario, if the other party has comprehensive cover, their vehicle will be covered by their own insurance company. Since you're only covered for third party damage, your insurance company won't be covering repairs to your vehicle.

        If you're not up for leaving the damage as-is or repairing it at your own cost, you'll then have to pursue the other party and/or their insurer for damages on the basis that you're not at fault. Without any supporting evidence to back up your claim, you'll be fighting an uphill battle to prove your version of events is correct.

  • ntt on 28/03/2022 - 10:12

    hey OP, I was in this shituation before, unless you have dashcam to prove you're at fault, there is no way to claim it. I finished the reversing and was starting to move forward and a fking stupid young lady just started to reverse from a parking slot. That little sh!t was just trying to persuade that I came from nowhere.

    • help my insurance on 28/03/2022 - 10:21

      I'm sorry that you went through that. It's disappointing when people blatantly lie and refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

      Did you have witness statements?

      Before the time of dash cameras, witness statements were of some value, but I've also heard that some insurance companies say that unless it's recorded clearly on video it didn't happen.

      • ntt on 28/03/2022 - 12:56

        witness is just another opinion and can be unreliable in their eyes. It might add some weight into the agurment but if the orther party denies and claim he/she was not at fault, well… good luck with your time and efforts.

        I got hit from ladies (no pun intended). First they didn't believe it, admit it and after 2-5 weeks they would deny that's their fault, it's a psychological thing that fk up everyone mind. If you want to fight, fight it back. Whatever the result will be, it wouldn't end well for your time and mind. Choose wisely

  • trapper on 28/03/2022 - 12:35

    Without a witness or some video evidence it is going to be difficult to determine fault here.

    A judge would probably just call it 50/50 each pays for their own car.

  • jv on 28/03/2022 - 13:03
    +1

    and impacts with Car 1 while Car 1 was stationary.

    If you can prove Car 1 was stationary, it is obviously Car 2 that caused the collision.

  • Lexan on 28/03/2022 - 14:41
    +1

    This is a reason why I never reverse park. Even at shopping centre.
    Car 2 at fault. Didn't check when reversing.

    • Euphemistic on 28/03/2022 - 16:34

      IMO it’s more reason to reverse park in shopping centres. You can see who is moving around you when you park, other cars can see you are about to move. When you leave (forwards) you have much better vision

    • Eeples on 28/03/2022 - 16:52

      But Car 2 says Car 1 hit her !!

  • sy8718 on 28/03/2022 - 16:32

    Unless you have evidence (dash camera footage, witness), finally it will be 50/50 if parties telling different stories.

  • Eeples on 28/03/2022 - 16:55

    OP, how do you know this “Car 2 reverses very quickly, without checking blindspot and impacts with Car 1” ?

    Did you see Car 2 reversing quickly?
    Did you see the driver of Car 2 not checking their blindspots?

  • Pizdets on 28/03/2022 - 17:51

    I'd actually put money on your insurer even saying you are at fault with the argument, 'You must give way to al vehicles on the road you are entering'. You will have to prove you did and she ran into you when you were already on there.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2022 - 03:44

      If the insurer admits fault, then the insurer would be responsible for paying for Car 2's repair. Do you really want to put money on an insurer willingly parting with money?

  • hasher22 on 03/04/2022 - 15:28

    From what I gathered, car 1 was already on the road and stationed to possibly prevent car 2 from hitting them, and car 2 started to reverse out.

    So car 2 is at fault by default.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join