Who at fault reversing out of car park space and car hits rear side of my car?

marylou123

I WAS EDGING OUT OF A CAR PARKING SPACE AT TWO MILES ON HOUR, I WAS ALMOST OUT AND PASSED TH HALFWAY MARK ON THE ROAD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR LANE WHEN I FELT A BUMP. I THOUGHT IT WAS MY FAULT AND I HAD HIT PASSING TRAFFIC BUT WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE CAR I REALISED THAT THE MIDDLE OF FRONT OF HER BUMPER HAD HIT THE REAR SIDE OF MY CAR . THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO MY CAR BUT SMALL PAINT SCRATCHES TO HERS. sHE RECKONS I'M AT FAULT CAUSE SHE HAS RIGHT OF WAY BUT I THINK SHE SHOULD OF SEEN ME BEING OUT THAT FAR CAN ANYONE GIVE MR ADVICE AS TO WHO IS AT FAULT

L1011

You drove (reversed) in to another car which was on the road. Your fault.

You never have right of way when reversing. You were at fault.

ThePower11

The other driver is correct, she has right of way therefore its your fault OP.

cala

i would say the other driver was at fault, as you were completing a reversing manouver. and as you were in the centre of the road ,they were obliged to give way to you

Alanstrainor

Deleted User wrote: »

You never have right of way when reversing. You were at fault.

+1

Reversing vehicle has no right of way. Sorry OP.

And by the way, the ALL CAPS POST is frowned upon in pretty much every forum.

Cedrus

The driver on the road has right of way. You might have a chance if you were pulling forwards out of the parking space, better still if she had just careened around a corner, but reversing into a carriageway, your fault. The two insurance companies might decide to share responsibility if they think that she was negligent in not seeing you.

challengemaster

cala wrote: »

i would say the other driver was at fault, as you were completing a reversing manouver. and as you were in the centre of the road ,they were obliged to give way to you

This is completely wrong, and quite frankly I'm worried if you've completed a driving test.

Conceptually, I'd struggle to see why she couldn't stop, so she was either going too fast or not watching where she was going. If she's being a pain in the arse it might well be worth going the insurance route, if she only wants a small sum for a smart repair I'd be incline to pay it.

As said though, she had right of way, still though, she still had use of her brakes.

legally and liability wise, she had right of way and it's your fault

in practise, i would expect someone to have the cop on to stop when they see a reversing car
but that doesn't make any difference for liability as i said so... sorry

Victor

RoverJames wrote: »

Conceptually, I'd struggle to see why she couldn't stop, so she was either going too fast or not watching where she was going.

When the other vehicle is doing "TWO MILES ON HOUR" it can be difficult to spot the movement.

marylou123

It was in a car park and she did just come from around a corner when i asked did she not see me she said she honked which she didn't but still kept driving. when security came to the scene they seen where cars were parked and pulled me aside and said she pulling a fast one that it looked like she wasn't watching where she was going as she was refusing to give me her insurance details

L1011

marylou123 wrote: »

It was in a car park and she did just come from around a corner when i asked did she not see me she said she honked which she didn't but still kept driving. when security came to the scene they seen where cars were parked and pulled me aside and said she pulling a fast one that it looked like she wasn't watching where she was going as she was refusing to give me her insurance details

Defensive reasoning.

You have no right of way when reversing, you drove in to traffic which had right of way.

colm_mcm

did anyone call the cops or ask to see security footage from the car park?

you're at fault by the sounds of it anyway.

cala

she should have given way to you.as she hit your car she must have been going too fast

L1011

cala wrote: »

she should have given way to you.as she hit your car she must have been going too fast

She had no obligation to give way, and hence her speed is irrelevant.

If you drive in to someone who has right of way you are inherently at fault.

marylou123

when we went to report it to cops she went very quite and didn't say anything when I said she came from a corner and hit me while reversing. I had to do all the talking but i have arranged to meet the copper to explain that i want cctv viewed as i spoke to friends and they have advised me not to accept liability that she is as much to blame once the front of her car hits back or side of you as you are already out.

L1011

marylou123 wrote: »

when we went to report it to cops she went very quite and didn't say anything when I said she came from a corner and hit me while reversing. I had to do all the talking but i have arranged to meet the copper to explain that i want cctv viewed as i spoke to friends and they have advised me not to accept liability that she is as much to blame once the front of her car hits back or side of you as you are already out.

Look, you're trying to convince yourself that you're not liable here and nobody else. Did you come on here to ask for advice or to attempt to reinforce your own belief? You don't appear to have actually taken any of the responses on board.

alias no.9

Can you have right of way through another car? There's a point at which a reversing car is in possession of the road rather than competing to enter it and right of way doesn't really come into it, they're an obstruction, but no more than traffic stopped in front of you, you can't just drive into someone whos an obstruction claiming right of way. I don't think this is as clear cut as people saying about being at fault because of being reversing. OP, I hope you got photos of the position of both cars immediately afterwards because I think this is key.

Voodoomelon

In another instance, if the OP was stationary in the middle of the road, ie cut out, broken down etc, who's fault would it be then? At what point does the other unobservant driver become any way liable?

Victor

Victor wrote: »

When the other vehicle is doing "TWO MILES ON HOUR" it can be difficult to spot the movement.

Well applying that logic the OP appeared as stationary, so the other person must be blind.

Anyway, it would appear the other party may not be insured.............

ZENER

Probably irrelevant but I wonder did she even have Insurance or even a Full License ? Maybe that's why she was cagey about exchanging details ?

It's a completely separate offense and doesn't null the fact that you were at fault but might make her more flexible when it comes to negotiating damages if you suggest it to her.

Ken

If a driver doesn't have any leg to stand on if they are reversing out of the space, at what stage of the manoeuvre would the car reversing not be at fault in the event of a crash?

Would they have to be completely out and horizontal to the space they reversed out of, because if the person on the road has right of way you would be all day getting out of a car space in some car parks?

marylou123

marylou123 wrote: »

when we went to report it to cops she went very quite and didn't say anything when I said she came from a corner and hit me while reversing. I had to do all the talking but i have arranged to meet the copper to explain that i want cctv viewed as i spoke to friends and they have advised me not to accept liability that she is as much to blame once the front of her car hits back or side of you as you are already out.

You might not accept liability but if she goes to your insurance company they will automatically accept liability. The bottom line is you must always yield to other traffic when reversing. It's as black and white as that I'm afraid. As bluewolf said, it's possible that she should have seen you and stopped but unfortunately for you she didn't and as far as an insurance company would be concerned, you're at fault.

marylou123

The security guard took note of how the cars were parked and said he would go as witness if insurance or gardai needed info

ZENER

Did the other driver provide her insurance details to the Gardaí ? If so then you could always counterclaim and see where you get with it. If she didn't then request the Gardaí to get them for you so you can do this. Be interesting to see what happens.

Ken

ZENER

ZENER wrote: »

Did the other driver provide her insurance details to the Gardaí ? If so then you could always counterclaim and see where you get with it. If she didn't then request the Gardaí to get them for you so you can do this. Be interesting to see what happens.

Ken

The Gardai are I believe responsible to ensure insurance details as required are exchanged at the scene of an incident, I wouldn't imagine they are responsible for getting them for folk after the event

ZENER

RoverJames wrote: »

The Gardai are I believe responsible to ensure insurance details as required are exchanged at the scene of an incident, I wouldn't imagine they are responsible for getting them for folk after the event

But didn't the other driver refuse to provide them ? What does the OP do in such a situation ?

Ken

Anan1

ZENER wrote: »

But didn't the other driver refuse to provide them ? What does the OP do in such a situation ?

Ken

Read them off her windscreen. If that's not possible then take a note of her reg and inform the Gardaí.

ZENER

ZENER wrote: »

But didn't the other driver refuse to provide them ? What does the OP do in such a situation ?

Ken

Should have mentioned that to the Garda at the time really I would think

Cristoirde

All insurance companies will side with the other person, you have to reverse into a parking space and drive out.

marylou123

she only gave them when security explained that the gardai would make her do it anyway give them if we waited for them. But she then said she didn't want to go through insurance or whether her husband even wanted to claim.

marketty

What's the story with right of way if this happened in a car park so?

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

Should have mentioned that to the Garda at the time really I would think

Sure the gardai shouldn't even be called if noone is injured

berrypendel

MYOB wrote: »

She had no obligation to give way, and hence her speed is irrelevant.

should she not be driving at a speed where she could stop in the distance she could see to be clear?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure the gardai shouldn't even be called if noone is injured

Not the case, if no one is injured they don't have to be called.

L1011

berrypendel wrote: »

should she not be driving at a speed where she could stop in the distance she could see to be clear?

The way was clear until the OP reversed in to her.

berrypendel

MYOB wrote: »

The way was clear until the OP reversed in to her.

My undestanding is the op says she drove into him/her

cala

if the guards were completeing a reversing manouevre and in the centre of the road. and they were hit from behind would they admit liability.

Anan1

marylou123 wrote: »

she only gave them when security explained that the gardai would make her do it anyway give them if we waited for them. But she then said she didn't want to go through insurance or whether her husband even wanted to claim.

If you haven't already done so, you need to inform your insurance company immediately. It does sound possible that she's uninsured, a quick call to her insurance company will clarify that. If it turns out that that's the case then inform the Gardaí. Either way you're 100% liable - you must yield to traffic when reversing. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you never even saw her then you clearly need to work on your observation skills.

L1011

berrypendel wrote: »

My undestanding is the op says she drove into him/her

The OP reversed in to them, whatever they may want to convince themselves of.

cala wrote: »

if the guards were completeing a reversing manouevre and in the centre of the road. and they were hit from behind would they admit liability.

Yes. Gardai do have at-fault accidents too.

Anan1

cala wrote: »

if the guards were completeing a reversing manouevre and in the centre of the road. and they were hit from behind would they admit liability.

Doesn't matter - unless they were prepared to lie about it in court they'd be liable. Nobody can expect to reverse out of a parking space into the path of oncoming traffic and not be liable.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

The OP reversed in to them, whatever they may want to convince themselves of.

Think it might be best to word it that the OP reversed out in front of the other driver. For the pedants

And to add, I still don't understand how people can't grasp the whole stopping distance v someone pulling out in front of you thing.

berrypendel

Anan1 wrote: »

a quick call to her insurance company will clarify that. .

will they tell that, what about data protection

looksee

marylou123 wrote: »

It was in a car park and she did just come from around a corner when i asked did she not see me she said she honked which she didn't but still kept driving. when security came to the scene they seen where cars were parked and pulled me aside and said she pulling a fast one that it looked like she wasn't watching where she was going as she was refusing to give me her insurance details

Doesn't the fact that they were in a car park make a difference? Surely you would expect to find people pulling in and out of spaces, either reversing or forwards, you also have people wandering around, and there is supposed to be a speed limit. If someone could come round a corner and drive into the side of a car reversing out, they would have done the same if she had been coming out forwards?

A bit off topic, but I have often wondered who is at fault if two people reverse out of opposite spaces and back into each other.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

.......... If someone could come round a corner and drive into the side of a car reversing out, they would have done the same if she had been coming out forwards? ..............

... or if it was a parent with a pram, or a child etc etc.
This right of way lark isn't a carte blance to plough your way through whatever appears in your way.

The OP claims to have backed out from the other side of the road slowly and also crossed the line dividing sides of the road. If the other drover didn't notice this and stop they mustn't have been very observant, of course, as mentioned neither was the OP.

Henry Ford III

This won't help Op's situation but why not reverse into parking spaces?

mathepac

looksee wrote: »

... A bit off topic, but I have often wondered who is at fault if two people reverse out of opposite spaces and back into each other.

50/50, with my ears still ringing from all that shouting at the start.

Jimdagym

Henry Ford III wrote: »

This won't help Op's situation but why not reverse into parking spaces?

Fwiw, I always try to reverse in, but if the buggy is needed out of the boot it's not always practical to reverse in, depending on the car park.

TJJP

Now of course if the OP had completed (part of) their reverse manoeuvre and were therefore stationary..... and A.N. Other then came round the corner (too) fast... I’d like to see any CCTV before I jumped to a conclusion.

Bruthal

challengemaster wrote: »

This is completely wrong, and quite frankly I'm worried if you've completed a driving test.

Id be worried about a driver that drives blindly into the side of a car partly blocking the road beside car parking spaces while this car is trying to reverse out, regardless of the driver out on the road having the right of way. All assuming the OP version is correct, and they didnt just quickly reverse out.

As for being worried about the poster completing a driving test, its hardly a test that reliably shows a person is a good competent driver. And completing one would not be the same as passing one anyway.