Car got Hit

cheesey1

I know this is probably not the right place for this thread but can't find one on traffic.

My car just got hit while parked on double yellow lines (I know I shouldn't have) and the artic truck that did it drove off and someone saw it and went after him. He did a fair bit of damage I am just wondering who is at fault me for parking on the double yellow lines or him as he hit my car. Please don't berate me for parking on the double yellow lines as I know I shouldn't have.

Ickle Magoo

Moved from PI

djimi

Truck is at fault; you hit a parked car and you are 100% at fault 100% of the time, regardless of how the car is parked.

cantdecide

+1

You don't have to be worried about parking like a jerk...

Kells...

+1

It was his fault he shouldn"t have been that close to the path

djimi

djimi wrote: »

Truck is at fault; you hit a parked car and you are 100% at fault 100% of the time, regardless of how the car is parked.

100% correct

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Truck is at fault; you hit a parked car and you are 100% at fault 100% of the time, regardless of how the car is parked.

I don't agree 100%.
In most cases that's true.
It doesn't matter if car was parked legally or not.
But if car was parked in dangerous way (f.e. in the middle of motorway, or on a narrow road just behind completely blind bend, etc), then I'm sure that person who parked it could be trated as responsible or part-responsible for a crash

CiniO

cheesey1 wrote: »

I know this is probably not the right place for this thread but can't find one on traffic.

My car just got hit while parked on double yellow lines (I know I shouldn't have) and the artic truck that did it drove off and someone saw it and went after him. He did a fair bit of damage I am just wondering who is at fault me for parking on the double yellow lines or him as he hit my car. Please don't berate me for parking on the double yellow lines as I know I shouldn't have.

Truck driver most likely will be at fault. So you will be able to claim from him/his insurance for your damage.
But be aware, that you'll probably also receive penalty for parking in forbidden place.

KamiKazi

CiniO wrote: »

I don't agree 100%.
In most cases that's true.
It doesn't matter if car was parked legally or not.
But if car was parked in dangerous way (f.e. in the middle of motorway, or on a narrow road just behind completely blind bend, etc), then I'm sure that person who parked it could be trated as responsible or part-responsible for a crash

You'd take that approach in your driving test if you encountered a poorly parked car would you?

Truck 100% at fault.

CiniO

KamiKazi wrote: »

You'd take that approach in your driving test if you encountered a poorly parked car would you?

Truck 100% at fault.

Imagine a situation. You are driving on motorway at speed od 120km/h.
Suddenly, you see the car parked straight in front of you on your lane. You can't change lane, because other is occupied already. It's to close to stop.
Would you take all fault at yourself?

KamiKazi

Was the car using it's cloak of invisibility until you were too close to avoid it?

bladespin

CiniO wrote: »

Truck driver most likely will be at fault. So you will be able to claim from him/his insurance for your damage.
But be aware, that you'll probably also receive penalty for parking in forbidden place.

I'd doubt it unless the gardai were called to the scene, even then.

GreeBo

CiniO wrote: »

Imagine a situation. You are driving on motorway at speed od 120km/h.
Suddenly, you see the car parked straight in front of you on your lane. You can't change lane, because other is occupied already. It's to close to stop.
Would you take all fault at yourself?

Its a great question tbh. After pondering it for a while I think my most honest answer is that I would brake.

/bolded section.
That would be one of those blind motorway bends then huh? :rolleyes:

kildare.17hmr

KamiKazi wrote: »

Was the car using it's cloak of invisibility until you were to close to avoid it?

no i think i heard about that happening near the airport on the M50, think it fell off the back of a plane, who dya reckon would be at fault then:rolleyes:

-Corkie-

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

no i think i heard about that happening near the airport on the M50, think it fell off the back of a plane, who dya reckon would be at fault then:rolleyes:

Ya theres always people parked on the damm Motorway in my lane. I always thought lane hogging was bad but this is a real low....;)

Cuddlesworth

CiniO wrote: »

Imagine a situation. You are driving on motorway at speed od 120km/h.
Suddenly, you see the car parked straight in front of you on your lane. You can't change lane, because other is occupied already. It's to close to stop.
Would you take all fault at yourself?

Solution. Get some driving lessons. You should never ever hit a stationary object if you are driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions.

Truck is at fault, 100%. Cops won't care if you were on double yellow lines and nothing will come of it from that end.

J K

CiniO wrote: »

Imagine a situation. You are driving on motorway at speed od 120km/h.
Suddenly, you see the car parked straight in front of you on your lane. You can't change lane, because other is occupied already. It's to close to stop.
Would you take all fault at yourself?

Cars do break down on motorways and people can have heart attacks and that type of thing. With a bit of luck its in the right hand lane that it happens, where every one will be congregated, doing 50km/hr - so there is lots of time to stop.

Micky Dolenz

Forget the motorway analogy. What about you are on a country road and you come around a bend and there parked on the road is a car and you hit it doing 30mph.

In both cases the driver of the vehicle that crashed into the stationary object(Car, person etc) is at fault, I would have thought.

feelites

in my opinion both of yaz where at fault and both should have discount bonuses affected

double yellow line mean NO PARKING

u broke this rule, so u get responsability for the accident as well

djimi

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Forget the motorway analogy. What about you are on a country road and you come around a bend and there parked on the road is a car and you hit it doing 30mph.

In both cases the driver of the vehicle that crashed into the stationary object(Car, person etc) is at fault, I would have thought.

You should always be driving at a speed where you can react to the situation. If youre driving around a blind bend (ie you cant see whats around the corner) then you should be of the mindset that there is something there and be prepared to act accordingly.

If a car is parked on a blind bend or dangerously then that is a seperate matter, but it will not cause the driver to take any of the blame for you hitting it.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

I don't agree 100%.
In most cases that's true.
It doesn't matter if car was parked legally or not.
But if car was parked in dangerous way (f.e. in the middle of motorway, or on a narrow road just behind completely blind bend, etc), then I'm sure that person who parked it could be trated as responsible or part-responsible for a crash

Trust me, if you hit a stationary vehicle, regardless of how that vehicle is parked/abandoned, from an insurance point of view you are 100% at fault. As I said above, the person who parked it there might have a case to answer, but it will be a seperate case from the accident, and will not affect the outcome of the accident. You should always be driving in such a way that you can react to what lies ahead.

opinion guy

djimi wrote: »

Truck is at fault; you hit a parked car and you are 100% at fault 100% of the time, regardless of how the car is parked.

Actually I can think of one exception to this. If you park blocking the exit to a firestation they can and will smash your car out of the way if they have to. Pretty sure its parkers fault there. Or you are illegally parked somewhere blocking their acess to an emergency.

In fact wasn't there a case where they smashed through a line of illegally parked cars a while back ?

Edit: typo fixed. Thank for pointing that out kamikazi!

KamiKazi

opinion guy wrote: »

Actually I can think of one exception to this. If you park blocking the exit to a firestation they can and will smash your car out of the way if they have to. Pretty sure its not parkers fault there. Or you are illegally parked somewhere blocking their acess to an emergency.

In fact wasn't there a case where they smashed through a line of illegally parked cars a while back ?

What??

There's a huge difference between inconveniencing somebody and putting peoples lives at risk by blocking a firestation exit.

CiniO

djimi wrote: »

Trust me, if you hit a stationary vehicle, regardless of how that vehicle is parked/abandoned, from an insurance point of view you are 100% at fault.

Now you went even further.
You said that if I hit stationary vehicle I'm always at fault.
What if someone will drive into my lane from the side of the road and stop just in front of me, not leaving me enough space to brake.
The vehicle was stationary, but it's obviously his fault.
Don't you think?

Yawns

Driving alon N4 1 evening. GF was driving. Going the max speed in left hand lane. Traffic overtaking us in the right. There's a lil stop not too far from Mullingar coming from Dub. Some old battleaxe decides to wait until we are on top. She pops out and only cos we were able to swerve into the hard shoulder we would have rear ended her. WHo would be at fault?

She clearly did dangerous driving. The cars behind us had to swerve into hardshoulder too and 1 into right hand lane. She pulled out, basically stopped, then drove at about 30 kph. If we had crashed into her there prob would have been 6 other cars smashing into us too.

I really thought the bitch wanted an accident to claim from us or something, it was such a stupid thing to do. Thank god noone was hurt. Reported her and heard nothing since and it was a good 18 months ago.

djimi

CiniO wrote: »

Now you went even further.
You said that if I hit stationary vehicle I'm always at fault.
What if someone will drive into my lane from the side of the road and stop just in front of me, not leaving me enough space to brake.
The vehicle was stationary, but it's obviously his fault.
Don't you think?

If someone pulled into your lane and screeched to a halt then yes, perhaps they would be seen to be at fault, but thats a pretty extreme example to be fair.

Im not sure what the exact legal definition of stationary is in this instance, but I have a feeling that example does not meet it.

djimi

opinion guy wrote: »

Actually I can think of one exception to this. If you park blocking the exit to a firestation they can and will smash your car out of the way if they have to. Pretty sure its not parkers fault there. Or you are illegally parked somewhere blocking their acess to an emergency.

In fact wasn't there a case where they smashed through a line of illegally parked cars a while back ?

Of course, goes without saying that if you block access to an emergency vehicle center then you are at fault for what happens to you.

What actually happened with that case in the end? Obviously the firemen were in the right to smash their way thru the cars, but were they liable for the damage caused in the end?

opinion guy

KamiKazi wrote: »

What??

There's a huge difference between inconveniencing somebody and putting peoples lives at risk by blocking a firestation exit.

Sorry kamikazi I made a typo in my post. Of course it is some idiots fault if they park in front of a firestation.

djimi wrote: »

Of course, goes without saying that if you block access to an emergency vehicle center then you are at fault for what happens to you.

What actually happened with that case in the end? Obviously the firemen were in the right to smash their way thru the cars, but were they liable for the damage caused in the end?

Don't know - I only barely remembering hearing a story like that. It might be a figment of my imagination but I think it happened.

ulinbac

Did ye get the license plate of the truck and contact the police?

For the guy who's GF swerved, if ye had hit anything after the swerve and did damage (without touching her) it would be yer fault and the damage would come out of your pocket. Happened to a friend 2 years back, they were driving, car pulled out, they swerved and hit a fence. Because they didn't touch off the driver that pulled out, they could not claim from them. Though if they hit them they would have had a claim!

Yawns

Great! Even tho it was like 5 or 6 cars that all had to swerve. Think it might have been in the 100kph limit area, not too sure. Either that or 80. There's usually a guard there too doing speed checks during the day but this happened during the evening. Thank **** noone got hurt. Old bat didn't care, kept plodding along at 30 with every1 beeping and roaring out window to her

cheesey1

As it turns out mine wasn't the only car he hit he also did a lot of damage to car in front of mine. He had driven off and didn't realise he did any damage and someone saw him and went after him and then he came back and told us that he had to go deliver his load and would return. We went and got his details from him before he delivered his load. I wonder what would have happened if he had hit a child and said he didn't realise surely those trucks should have a beeper device that tells them when they are too near something.

As i said I know I was on double yellow lines. It is a bad street to drive up and down the best of times and if a truck is coming up there is no room for a car to go down. But that's another problem not for this thread.

Ush1

Wasn't there a story in France of a car illegally parked obstructing a road. A truck that wanted to get by informed the police. Apparently the policeman said the truck was fine to barge its way past. The cop then issued the car with a ticket and told the parked cars insurance company they would have to pay for the damage to the truck.

Think it was posted here by someone.

Yawns

I remember a story like that.

cheesey1

Ush1 wrote: »

Wasn't there a story in France of a car illegally parked obstructing a road. A truck that wanted to get by informed the police. Apparently the policeman said the truck was fine to barge its way past. The cop then issued the car with a ticket and told the parked cars insurance company they would have to pay for the damage to the truck.

Think it was posted here by someone.

Not being smart but this is Ireland not France. Anyway Insurance Company have been notified and advised that parked on double yellow lines and they say doesn't matter he was still at fault he shouldn't have hit either car and also left the scene. So will just have to wait and see.

?Cee?view

cheesey1 wrote: »

Not being smart but this is Ireland not France.

You're not being smart. You're dead right.

You just can't compare the legal systems of e.g. France, Spain, Poland or Italy with Ireland or England and Wales. They are completely different. There are some posters here in this and other threads who seem to believe that what the Statute says is the whole story when it comes to the legal position. It would be in mainland Europe (and Scotland to an extent), but it's not in Ireland.

In this case - No doubt that the truck is liable. The yellow lines are an irrelevance to the truck driver's liability, but his insurer could conceivably argue an element of contributory negligence on the part of the OP i.e. that he had put himself in "danger" to an extent by parking on the yellow lines, if the area was dangerous to park in (rather than just forbidden for some other reason), so he should share some liability. Fact is, the Insurer will most likely (99.9999% likelihood), just pay up rather than wasting money on an obscure legal argument.

Ush1

cheesey1 wrote: »

Not being smart but this is Ireland not France. Anyway Insurance Company have been notified and advised that parked on double yellow lines and they say doesn't matter he was still at fault he shouldn't have hit either car and also left the scene. So will just have to wait and see.

It was more an amusing anecdote than any sort of advice to be honest.

?Cee?view

Ush1 wrote: »

It was more an amusing anecdote than any sort of advice to be honest.

I know. I wasn't getting at you. Sorry if it came across that way.