Collision: Who's at Fault?

Ldarkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:01
Last edited 11/08/2022 - 20:45

Collision Diagram

Two Fridays ago, we (car B) were parked in an IGA parking lot. We're getting back inside our car when car A exited his spot and hit our car, dragged our door and caused this damage. I was already in the driver seat but the car is still stationary. My wife told me the door was not opened that much as my 3 year old daughter couldn't properly get inside. Her leg is half-way in. This horrifies me to this day thinking it could be a lot worse.

I tried to stop the other driver from leaving and exchange details. We talked/argued for a bit but he didn't want to give his details and he drove off. Since the damage to our car is significant, I had no choice but to report to the police and file a claim to my insurer.

At that time, there's no obvious damage to the other car.

Our insurer told us it was our fault because of NSW road rule 269 point # 3. I was almost at the acceptance stage since it didn't occur to me to get the witnesses' details and the CCTV footage didn't really have our car in the view because of its angle. CCTV

Fast forward to today, I received a notice from the other party's insurer. They filed a claim and they're saying it's our fault and we are liable.

This is really stressing me out.

From my perspective:
* We are within our rights to go back inside the car, the other party didn't check his mirrors before driving off. He would have seen us.
* The parking lot was busy. One car just passed by and another one is coming.
* The car that hit us immediately turned right. He should have moved forward a bit before making a right.

Do we have no case here? Is there no point in fighting this?

Thanks for reading.

Edit: change CCTV footage link to imgur (had to trim the video too)

Poll Options

  • 113
    Car A
  • 23
    Car B
  • 7
    Both (which one is more at fault?)
Automotive

Comments

  • SF3 on 10/08/2022 - 23:08

    What type of car as A? seems to have survived and moved on…

    • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:09
      +2

      It's a Ute (Volkswagen Amarok).

      • SF3 on 10/08/2022 - 23:11

        It reversed out with wheel to left (hit your door in the process?), once out of the spot, wheel to right / forward to leave?

        • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:14

          Both cars are facing IGA. He drove forward.We're not sure what hit our door. My wife thinks it's something above her head because it would have hit her it's something lower than that. She's under 152 cm tall.

          • SF3 on 10/08/2022 - 23:16

            @darkknight: It could just be me, but if Car A moved forward and turned right, I can't see how their rear could have hit your car, unless your door was very closed to car B.

            • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:19
              +2

              @SF3: It's more like a turn right straight away. He doesn't have a car to his right at that time.

          • Techie4066 on 11/08/2022 - 00:54
            +8

            @darkknight:

            We're not sure what hit our door.

            It would've been the corner of the ute's tray, going by the CCTV and impact point in your photo.

            I say without a doubt Car A at fault. Hazards need to be accounted for moving out of tight spaces from a stop. There was no need to turn so soon and they should be aware of their tray's swing when turning.

        • Caped Baldy on 11/08/2022 - 08:02
          +1

          I watched the video, doesn't have footage of OP's car. Car A cuts the adjacent empty spot and should have avoided hitting anything. I think the Car B door was more open than claimed and clipped the ute's tray.

    • hairybum on 11/08/2022 - 08:19
      +1

      You need to seek legal advice before doing anything more.

    • HeWhoKnows on 11/08/2022 - 17:47
      -6

      Whats the point of this excercise?
      Your insurer has the FINAL say.
      Not us.

      What are you going to do?
      Go to court and use the comments here as your evidence?
      That will be a first for OB
      LOL LOL LOL

  • grog on 10/08/2022 - 23:10
    +4

    Does this road rule apply to private carparks in NSW?

    269 point # 3

    • jjjaar on 10/08/2022 - 23:31
      +1

      Yeah I came here to query that too.

    • apsilon on 11/08/2022 - 06:55
      +1

      If it's publicly accessible then it doesn't matter who owns it, all road rules apply.

  • sjj89 on 10/08/2022 - 23:12
    +28

    You’re stationary, vehicle not on.
    The moving vehicle is at fault.

  • AustriaBargain on 10/08/2022 - 23:13
    +4

    No one can give you an answer, without a MS Paint diagram.

  • plmko on 10/08/2022 - 23:14
    -8

    You are wrong

    • Xistn on 11/08/2022 - 08:01
      +11

      ^ The Amarok driver.

  • Darude Sandstorm on 10/08/2022 - 23:18
    +6

    You're not moving, all within your bay. He turned into your bay then did a runner without exchanging details or reporting.

    • Gervais fanboy on 10/08/2022 - 23:32
      -4

      then did a runner

      Well, technically that’s not true because the op did manage to speak to him at the location of the incident.
      You can allege that the other party ‘tried’ but then that would be another battle to prove intent.

      • smartazz104 on 13/08/2022 - 07:10

        He didn’t leave his details, for all intents and purposes he did a runner.

  • Gervais fanboy on 10/08/2022 - 23:29
    +3

    Hey Op,

    The door of your car that was left slightly ajar, was it within your parking bay/box or did it somewhat manage to extend into the Car A’s parking bay ?

    Also, with the information that you have provided so far. It’s hard to conclusively say who’s at fault here. It’s one of those situations. It’s a shame that your own insurance company isn’t doing more to advise/help you.

    • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:37
      +2

      I cannot rule out the possibility that it didn't extend to his bay as I'm already inside the car. I just have to trust what my wife told me that our 3-year-old daughter couldn't even properly get inside. Here's another photo with a different angle.

      • SF3 on 10/08/2022 - 23:45
        +2

        Gosh, your Mitsubishi looks like bits are missing.

      • Gervais fanboy on 10/08/2022 - 23:50
        +6

        Got it 👍🏻

        Btw If it were me, I’d speak with my friend who owns a repair shop that deals with the insurance people all the time and is well versed with the jargon that it takes to make my story seem more believable.
        Secondly, I would have took down the details of a potential witness at the scene of the incident because that would have been hook, line and sinker for you. I am hoping that you have got someone like that who was there and could back your story…

        Regardless of what happens though, at worst it would be an excess that you would have to pay, which’s rough of course but these things are normal and will happen/already happened to the rest of us.
        Don’t let life ‘stress’ you out like that.
        Injustices happen and sometimes you catch a lucky break. You are a family man, gotta stay strong my man.

        • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:53
          +2

          Thanks @Gervais for your kind words.

          With the stress of the situation, it didn't occur to us to get the witnesses' details. First time I got involved in a collision where the other party didn't exchange details.

  • John Kimble on 10/08/2022 - 23:34
    +1

    Just waiting for CCTV link to process 😫

    • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:42

      I think you can download a copy…

    • HeWhoKnows on 13/08/2022 - 16:04

      No need JK
      Both insurance companies have already processed the information and both have ruled AGAINST OP.

      Obviously the other parties claims held up which we dont get to hear unfortunately

  • oscargamer on 10/08/2022 - 23:34
    +26

    There are a number of things at play in this incident. Don't let them overlap

    1. Fail to exchange details, by the other party. This is the matter you reported to police. You MUST pursue this and you must insist that the other driver is charged.

    2. The damage. The devil is in the detail. If an occupant of your car opened your door and that caused the impact between the two cars, then that is on you. If the door was already open and the other driver drove into a now stationary door, that it is on them.

    The reason you MUST push to get the other driver charged for the fail to exchange, is that it puts them in a bad light, when it comes to the civil matter of the damage. Why would they refuse to exchange details if you caused the damage? You will state that they 'ran away' because they are the guilty party.

    • darkknight on 10/08/2022 - 23:44

      This I know for sure. He's not moving yet when we opened our door.

      • oscargamer on 10/08/2022 - 23:56
        +10

        Then you state that IN CAPITAL LETTERS to your insurer and tell them to stick RR269.3 up their proverbial ring. If they push back, start their internal complaint process. From your version, you did nothing wrong.

        Chase the police to ensure he is charged.

      • morse on 11/08/2022 - 05:23
        +21

        I think the point here as well is that your wife and daughter were also between the cars and the driver didn’t check it was safe to drive before pulling out. That’s downright dangerous. Also emphasise this. It’s generally not the done thing to drive out of a spot whilst the person next to you is getting into their car, whilst waiting is annoying, especially when kids are involved, just driving off and risking injuring people is not okay. For next time, if I notice someone looking like they are going to leave I let them go before attempting to get my toddler in the car, as you know it can take ages. Though it may well be been that he wasn’t even in his car when you started loading the toddler in.

    • HeWhoKnows on 13/08/2022 - 16:07
      -1

      You are living 50 years in the past.
      Policer dont care
      Police dont get involved unless there are injuries to people.
      Police leave it up to the insurance companies to sort out.
      Both insurnace companies have placed blame on OP
      Thats a 100% strike rate against OP
      End of story.
      Job done
      Finished

  • trustnoone on 11/08/2022 - 00:11
    +5

    Is your insurance and their insurance the same or different companies?

  • Unorthodox on 11/08/2022 - 00:12
    +8

    Curious to know which insurance companies you are dealing with.

    From the photo, your drawing and description - it definitely isn't easy to comprehend nor is it straight forward enough for an assessor to determine the full story.

    1. You really need to be iterating that the other driver is at fault if you believe so and reinforce that the driver did not stop to exchange details, take photos or mediate. The key point will help build the case that the other party was not of good character and did not stop at the scene of the accident to mediate or co-operate.

    2. Your description of the events, drawing and photos are not clearly telling the story. You need to do better in explaining in key points where the at fault points were.
      If there was not enough clearance because the driver did not exit the parking bay properly then this must be stated clearly and the imagery supporting it.
      Looking at the photo, the damage is not consistent with the story of an exit from a parking space.
      (You've further edited to say it was the exit angle that caused it because the other party drove out not going completely forward due to no car being adjacent to it the the other bay).

    - You need to include this key point in your explanation and link it to the damage.

    1. You should be showing how that damage is only possible if it was due to the other party's incorrect exit.
      You also should be clear in your explanation that based on the story, the other vehicle would have crossed over to your parking bay. What could have been the consequences is that if there was a human there, they would have been pinned or seriously harmed. The insurance company assessor needs to be able to visualise the bigger picture.

    Overall though, you should be more careful when you are opening car doors especially if you can see that there may be someone moving their car whether it's entering, exiting or readjusting a park.
    Spacial and situational awareness should be front of mind especially if you have a young child not in their seat in a car park.
    In fact, you were in the driver's seat so you should have heard and seen that the other driver had their engine on which could lead to them moving.

    In terms of who's at fault - based on the info it would probably be 50/50. Your fault for not being aware and dropping the ball by having a door that could have interfered with the other car's clearance. Other driver's fault for not being aware when exiting.
    Obviously if there's a better description and sequence of events, it may be different.

  • askbargain on 11/08/2022 - 00:47

    My wife told me the door was not opened that much as my 3 year old daughter couldn't properly get inside.

    Wouldn’t it be the door would be opened wider?

    Knowing how everyone swings their doors wide open when getting in, I would say your door was probably in the other persons parking bay.

    Car A shouldn’t have ran away. And since he was turning right, he would be turning away from your car, not towards it.

    • Techie4066 on 11/08/2022 - 00:52
      +1

      Not to mention, checking mirrors is helpful.

      • askbargain on 11/08/2022 - 01:01

        It’s not like Car A did a sharp turn anyway. They did exit quickly and didn’t indicate. You could be checking your mirrors, but without an unbiased camera view of that area, it’s hard to say what was going on.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2022 - 06:49
          +6

          it looks like their turn was rather sharp.. if there had been a car in the space on their right side, they would have nicked the front of it. they turned too early and their vehicle was too long, it definitely looks like they entered the bay on their left with the tray.

          you can get away with exits like that in a hatchback, even a sedan, but not a ute

  • Mistredo on 11/08/2022 - 01:26
    +1

    From the video it looks like he turned right too soon. If there was a car on his right he would damage it too. I would even argue he would possibly damage your doors even if they were closed.

  • zzzsianzzz on 11/08/2022 - 02:37
    +1

    the car slots are narrow for car A. In cctv, car A is longer and is parking near the line on drivers side.
    2 cars, looking at ops door, car B door might be close or touching their back and the kid is not fully in the car, and wife might have open it fully not knowing?
    The lights for the car B are switched on, and showing they are leaving and waiting for the 2 cars that turned in to clear. drive in car A did not check the mirrors and left, drag Car B door.
    A near miss for injury.

  • barge-in hunter on 11/08/2022 - 06:54
    +22

    Hey OP.

    A big thing to note here is that the Amarok is dual cab, but has what looks to be an aftermarket tray on the back, design for a single cab ute. The tray looks to extend longer than the back of the chasis, so I doubt it's a proper VW one

    This may be considered an illegal modification as it significantly extends the length of the vehicles bodywork (also why it swings out so much when they turned). Check on vw's website for the "maximum tray length" for that model, and the Australian design rules for modifying car bodies.

    Assuming this is correct, bring it to the attention of the police, and really push that car to be classified as unroadworthy. That changes the whole story to:
    "Their car hit me because it's bodywork has been illegally modified"

    Good luck, the other driver is a bad human being.

    EDIT: this article talks to the ADRs a little, and indicates it might not be illegal (but you'd need to measure their car to check)… A big con they list though, is having a longer tray makes getting in and out of carparks harder! Still worth checking VW Australia's website though

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2022 - 11:31

      A big thing to note here is that the Amarok is dual cab, but has what looks to be an aftermarket tray on the back, design for a single cab ute. The tray looks to extend longer than the back of the chasis, so I doubt it's a proper VW one

      Dual cabs can have trays on them, they sell them without ‘tubs’ depending on the model. It’s a normal modification. They come in various lengths to suit the purpose. Off raiders get shorter ones for departure angle. Tradies get the largest they are allowed so they can put more stuff in it.

      • barge-in hunter on 13/08/2022 - 10:24

        Makes sense that they can change the tray, not arguing there but…

        Tradies get the largest they are allowed so they can put more stuff in it.

        this is what I'm referring to. It looks super long in the footage - if it extends past the rear axle more than 60% of the wheelspan then it's "larger than they are allowed"

        • Euphemistic on 13/08/2022 - 15:11

          It’d have to be more than 1850mm past the rear axle. An 1800mm Tray is pretty standard, and looks to me to be about the same length as the height of the vehicle (also about 1800mm) although it is a bit hard to tell with the fisheye effect. Plus it’s already a coupe hundred mm in front of the centre of the rear wheels.

    • kiitos on 12/08/2022 - 12:20

      Yeah, the length extending past the rear axle is definitely longer than you'd expect, and would swing quite a bit to the left during a right turn.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/08/2022 - 06:55
    +2

    car A at fault. you were parked, he failed to indicate and check mirrors for hazards, he also turned too sharply and by the looks of the CCTV, he would have entered your bay with the rear of his ute.

    as for that road rule, i don't think it would apply in a car park, it seems your insurer is trying to shift blame because they don't want to pay. the rule appears to be talking about stopping on the side of a road, not in a car park.

    people have already mentioned that he did a runner without exchanging details and that you should pursue that to the fullest.

    i suggest advertising on a local facebook page and other social media pages looking for the witnesses, with any luck you might find them.

  • DarkOz on 11/08/2022 - 07:39

    Considering Car A is a long and wide vehicle, it had turned right too sharply and caused the back of the UTE to swing into car B's open door. In this case I think it's car A's fault. Had car A moved straight forward and clips car B's door then car B would be at fault for opening the door too wide.

  • Sawtell on 11/08/2022 - 07:52

    I sometimes drive a large Mercedes Sprinter van and you have to be careful in carparks for this reason - the bum does swing out.

    Verdict for the OP. Car A at fault.

  • jjjaar on 11/08/2022 - 08:40
    +2

    If there was a brick wall along the line between the two car parks, would the other vehicle have hit it?

  • Tomhaigh1 on 11/08/2022 - 08:45
    +2

    just curious, would a dashcam able to capture this? I think it can capture only front and back not sides. I am a new driver so thinking of ways to protect myself (and others) :)

  • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 09:08
    +15

    I would like to congratulate the OP on a well presented post.

    The details were all included in a orderly, easy to read manner.

    We all know how frustrating it is when an OP adds vital details into the thread and not in the original blurb.

    • darkknight on 11/08/2022 - 09:37
      +2

      Storytelling isn't my best strength. Thank you for the kind words.

  • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 09:15
    +3

    Tough call on this one but common sense usually prevails in carparks where if you here an engine running beside you - don't open the doors until you have established what the other driving is doing.

    I'm a bit confused. Was your wife standing next to your 3yo when this occured or was the child solely responsible for the door and entering the vehicle?

    • darkknight on 11/08/2022 - 09:39
      +2

      Yeah in hindsight we should have waited for Car A to leave. We just thought he wouldn't leave his spot yet as the carpark is busy. One car still parking and there more cars entering.

      My wife is standing next to my daughter. My daughter cannot open the door yet from the outside.

      • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 09:43
        -1

        Good honest reply. Cheers.

        Hindsight is a wonderful thing but unfortunately (assuming car A is not illegally long - which I don't think it will be) then lack of common sense is to blame.

    • KaTst3R on 11/08/2022 - 09:53

      I agree with this. You gotta be super careful when the car beside you has their engine running. Especially when there are kids around. It is just basic common sense. Both drivers are somewhat at fault here. Car A didnt check clear before driving off. Car A can also argue, Car B opened the door just as he/she is moving off. It is very difficult to argue this case.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/08/2022 - 09:38
    +6

    Contact your insurer's internal dispute resolution department TODAY.

    Could write a textbook on this, but I fail to see how you created an undefined 'hazard' from being stationary in a parking bay located in a defined road related area - not a road, and opening a passenger door when 1. the door is not facing the road related area and 2. the adjacent vehicle is stationary at the time of opening the passenger door to get in - not out, of the vehicle.

  • Misplaced on 11/08/2022 - 10:00
    +5

    I'm amazed at the audacity of the ute driver. He fails to safely operate his vehicle and drives dangerously close to people including a woman and a 3 year old child without due care and attention. And then he tries to put the blame on innocent people who were simply getting in to their (stationary) car. He caused a dangerous situation which could have been much worse (would he still claim it was OP's fault if the 3 year old had ended up with crush injuries?). This guy could have nearly killed your kid ! And now he blames your family for simply getting into your car ! It's not your fault he doesn't watch his mirrors properly (and how wide open your door was is totally irrelevant. He has eyes and ought to use them). My advice would be: Get angry. Dispute it. Don't let the [expletive] get away with this! There is no conceivable way this is OP's fault. Not on this planet or any other planet. People who drive hulking big things ought to learn how to operate them properly. I can't think of ANY conceivable situation where a stationary person would be at fault when a person is in charge of operating a piece of machinery. He is the one who hit your car, not the other way round. Is he suggesting someone slammed the door into his car and caused that much damage? Get onto his insurer immediately and tell them that this is "utter garbage". And please stop apologizing! You have nothing to apologize for! You got hit by a person who was obviously a bad driver, and who has proved himself to be an a….hole by blaming the innocent party.

    • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 10:02

      and how wide open your door was is totally irrelevant.

      Sorry, but that is not true.

      • Misplaced on 11/08/2022 - 10:05
        +3

        Why, exactly? He is operating the moving vehicle and is primarily responsible for watching out to make sure he doesn't hit a person or car.

        • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 10:34
          +3

          Ok. Picture this scenario.

          Ute: starts car, turns on lights, waits for traffic to clear, checks left mirror (all clear), goes to check right mirror

          Mum and 3yo: quick darling hop in the car because it's cold and this man over here is taking too long. Proceeds to open door into the utes lane and line of drive

          Ute: right mirror all clear as well. Safe to proceed. FIGJAM.

          Mum and 3yo: are you ok darling, that man nearly killed you (classic blame shifting)

          Ute: WTF. I'm going to be an A'hole because I'm impatient and the boys are waiting for me at the pub.

          • Misplaced on 11/08/2022 - 10:41
            +3

            @MS Paint: Checking your mirror is a continuous process. You don't just glance in the mirror and then drive off and meanwhile a 3 year old opens a door and nearly gets crushed to death. If you drive a hulking great thing with an oversize / modified tray, you ought to get even better at checking your mirrors. A truck or bus may not have full visibility - a ute driver does. There were people there, including a kid !!!! He should have been extra careful !!!! The blame attaches to him 100%.

            • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 10:58
              +2

              @Misplaced:

              Checking your mirror is a continuous process.

              Checking your mirror is part of the process. FTFY.

          • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/08/2022 - 11:24
            +2

            @MS Paint: Ok. Picture this scenario.

            Ute: starts car, turns on lights, waits for traffic to clear, checks left mirror (all clear), goes to check right mirror

            Mum and 3yo - rightly and fully permitted to stand next to the rear passenger door of their vehicle, but standing ~30cm closer to the front of their vehicle, and doesn't open the passenger door and simply waits for old mate in the Ute to drive off to safely open the passenger door of their vehicle.

            Ute: right mirror all clear as well. Safe to proceed. FIGJAM.

            Mum and 3yo: Mother and/or child crushed between ute tray and their own vehicle

            Ute: WTF. I'm going to be an A'hole because I'm impatient and the boys are waiting for me at the pub

            • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 11:48
              +2

              @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Ok. But the only part of the vehicle that was damaged was the open door. How far open it was we will never know.

              I go back to my original point of not opening doors next to cars with running engines until you have established what that car is doing. Sometimes you just need to be patient.

              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/08/2022 - 12:09
                +5

                @MS Paint: Ok. You went with a hypothetical so I responded with a hypothetical.

                I would go to the point of not pulling out of parking bays if there are individuals on either side of your vehicle, door opened or not. Sometimes you just need to be patient.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/08/2022 - 10:09
        +1

        how wide open your door was is totally irrelevant in this matter

  • firebucket on 11/08/2022 - 10:25
    +3

    I can empathise with you OP in this instance. Especially since you were stationary. I would question whether the width of the ute is legal, especially since it seems to protrude wider than the body of the cab. Not permitted for tyres, so fail to see how a ute tray can do so. However, I fail to see how this damage / collision would have occurred if the door has not been opened so far as to protrude into the next parking bay. In my mind, financially, you both may share some of the fault.

    • Misplaced on 11/08/2022 - 10:44
      +1

      He could just as easily have hit one of the people there, rather than the door. Since he obviously wasn't looking properly. Also there is the fact that (a). He had an oversize tray and (b). He exited at a sharp angle. He could just as well have intruded into the other parking bay.

    • Euphemistic on 11/08/2022 - 11:34
      -1

      It’s completely normal and legal for a ute tray to be wider than the body. Just need to have suitable mirrors. The factory mirrors may not be wide enough for a trayback.

  • GG57 on 11/08/2022 - 11:00
    +5

    The thing I took from watching the CCTV footage is how bad all of the drivers were in that car park.

    • orangetrain on 11/08/2022 - 12:19
      +1

      And the trolleys all over the entrance

  • ShortyX on 11/08/2022 - 11:57
    +1

    It is a tricky one since the CCTV footage doesn't show OP's car and the ute driver could argue that Car B occupants created the hazard by opening their car door.

    How much is your excess OP? If your insurer and their insurer is saying it's your fault, you may have a difficult time trying to argue your case, particularly when there is no evidence to back up your argument.

    • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 12:06

      I agree.

      Between the rules…

      A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.

      And a lack of evidence due to unfortunate cctv camera angle I think OP needs to pony up. If there was damage to other parts of OPs vehicle then that would be a different story.

  • Drakesy on 11/08/2022 - 12:10

    Yes your door was open
    Yes it may have been impeding the Amazon driver's space
    But at the end of the day you were stationary.

    Dooring would occur if you opened up into the moving vehicles path and it would be your fault
    However as both cars were initially stationary you may have a case as you didn't cause the collision.

    May end up being a 50/50 split or car b to be at fault

    • darkknight on 11/08/2022 - 12:11

      50/50 split is certainly more palatable than 100% our fault.

      • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 12:14
        +1

        Pretty sure it makes no difference to blame, your excess or future premium rises.

        50/50 just alters the payout from each insurance company.

      • Drakesy on 11/08/2022 - 13:11

        But yeah the grey area would be if he needed to check all sides before moving
        I don know amoroks are one of the biggest Ute's on the road and they have large swept paths.

    • MS Paint on 11/08/2022 - 12:15
      +1

      What was the giveaway that the ute is an Amazon delivery driver? 🙂

  • ForkSnorter on 11/08/2022 - 12:39
    +2

    If he wasn’t moving when you opened your door, car A is at fault. You are obviously allowed to open your door to get in your car when there is somebody parked next to you.

  • GordonD on 11/08/2022 - 13:10

    Who's responsible? There's an option not listed: IGA.

    We have a situation where vehicles have to turn right as soon as they can to exit the parking lot. We have a ute driver who was held up by other traffic, and appears to have exited as soon as there was a gap in that traffic without re-checking his left mirror to see if it was safe to start moving [negligent use of a motor vehicle], and should have been aware that the construction of his vehicle meant there was tailswing when he turned sharply. Plus he then refused to supply his details after a collision. And we have people who were too impatient to get into their adjacent vehicle, and even though the ute driver had his engine running and lights on, didn't wait for him to go before they opened their door [unsafe entry/exit vehicle].

    Solomon says split the baby in half. Each pays for their own damage.

    But if the the car spaces were wide enough the collision would not have occurred. It doesn't appear the ute was to the left of its car space. But as shown in the CCTV footage the vehicle parked further along had very little space on either side of it. If that was the case for all the car spaces then IGA shares in the blame for a crash that could have involved injury or death by trying to cram in too many parking spaces and by doing so created the likelihood that a crash would occur when a ute was parked next to an SUV.

    Are the car spaces 2.4 m wide?

  • Caped Baldy on 11/08/2022 - 14:19

    I'm not sure if the argument of stationary completely holds water. If you're driving in a narrow street and someone opens their door to the max and you collide with it, who is at fault?

    • John Kimble on 11/08/2022 - 14:22
      +5

      In your example, the car door opener.

      If the car door is already open, you can't just drive into it, then you'll be at fault.

      • GordonD on 11/08/2022 - 14:47

        Correct. The fact that someone has done something they shouldn't have doesn't mean you can just run into them, and blame them. You share responsibility with them.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 11/08/2022 - 15:01
      +1

      If you're driving in a narrow street and someone opens their door to the max and you collide with it, who is at fault?

      Which is exactly the situation I personally interpret the Rules to refer to - to prevent/penalize this sort of situation.
      http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…

      Seems illogical this rule would apply to OP noting my summary further up. Trying to get into their parked car, parked car adjacent pulls out and hits them (and not the other way around).

    • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 15:04
      +2

      In your example the car was already moving when the door was opened so it is the door opener.

      In OPs example the car was stationary when they opened the door, so it is the driver's fault (drove into the door when the door was already open).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join