Parking on the wrong side of the road

[Millie23]

Hi

Is it illegal to park on the right-hand side of the road, facing oncoming traffic, in the day time? I've heard it is illegal to do so at night.

The reason I ask is that a driver who was parked on the opposite side of the road, and slightly behind me, banged into me as I was pulling out on to the same road. I was parked in my parking bay on the left hand side. I checked for traffic and pedestrians in front and to my right and also behind me. I didn't see the other car which pulled out across the traffic and hit my driver's side front bumper as I was pulling out. Who do you suppose is at fault?

Thanks
Millie23

[PI Guy]

he hit u or u hit him? or a bit of both?

Where he parked illegally or not is irrelevant.

[Millie23]

Good point. I suppose our insurance companies will have to decide if it was a 50/50 thing. He was behind me on the other side of the road so I didn't see him. I was in front of him to his left and he didn't see me!

By the way this is the first time I've posted and I am astonished by the speed of your response. Thank you.

Millie23

[PI Guy]

i was bored and therefore reading and surfing through the internet.

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by Millie23

Hi

Is it illegal to park on the right-hand side of the road, facing oncoming traffic, in the day time? I've heard it is illegal to do so at night.

The reason I ask is that a driver who was parked on the opposite side of the road, and slightly behind me, banged into me as I was pulling out on to the same road. I was parked in my parking bay on the left hand side. I checked for traffic and pedestrians in front and to my right and also behind me. I didn't see the other car which pulled out across the traffic and hit my driver's side front bumper as I was pulling out. Who do you suppose is at fault?

Thanks
Millie23

This might be better asked in Insurance forum, but to clarify the position. It matters not about the legality of parking the wrong way on a road when determining liablity for an accident, what does matter is the circumstances that caused the impact. If I understand you correctly you and the other driver were both moving in a forward direction and neither of you were stationary, therefore you both have a duty of care to ensure that it is safe to travel in that direction. Unless one of you wants to claim (and prove) that you were stationary then you were both to blame and the insurers will probably handle it on 50/50 basis.

There are factors that will alter the 50/50 basis such as speed, position etc but you would need independent evidence to make them count.

Mossycat

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by Millie23

Good point. I suppose our insurance companies will have to decide if it was a 50/50 thing. He was behind me on the other side of the road so I didn't see him. I was in front of him to his left and he didn't see me!

By the way this is the first time I've posted and I am astonished by the speed of your response. Thank you.

Millie23

You said in your OP that he hit your front bumper, now you say he was behind you. I cannot see how both statements can be true. If you were emerging from a parking space onto the main road you have a bigger duty of care than traffic already on the main road, you need to ensure it is safe to pull out and join the road, which means looking all around you and not just the direction of the traffic. I'd be tempted to argue 25/75 liability here (you being 75% in the wrong and offer you 25% of your claim) if I was the claims handler.

Mossycat

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Millie 23

As I understand it, you parked on the left hand side of the road parked "with the flow of traffic". The other guy was on the other side of the road parked in the same direction as you. He was positioned slightly behind you.

You checked in front of you and behind you for traffic and seeing that it was clear and safe pulled out.

In the meantime, the other guy pulled out and across the road without apparently checking that the road was clear or sounding his horn to warn you and struck you on your front offside bumper.

If I am correct in that understanding the other guy is in breach of highway code rule 239

239
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside

• do not park facing against the traffic flow

and this can be used as additional evidence of his negligence.

The other side will also argue that you were negligent because you pulled out of the parking space and into the road without apparently checking that the road was clear or sounding your horn to warn the other guy.

If you are going to go for it (and in your shoes I would) you need to argue that the other guy was 100% at fault.

[Mossycat]

I'm not sure how the OP can seek to argue that the other party was 100% at fault unless they were stationary at the time of the collision. Whilst you are correct with the quote from the Highway Code I would add that this is not the law and has little bearing on the liability for the accident, yes I agree that you shouldn't park the wrong way (ie against the flow of traffic) but we are not arguing about parking per se in this instance we are talking about the collision that occured before the other party parked up.

Mossycat

[Millie23]

Bernie the Bolt

You do understand the circumstances correctly. The only thing I didn't state clearly is that as I was driving forward, he crossed me diagonally from the other side of the road, which is why he hit my front right bumper. It could be that we pulled off at the same time but I can't say for sure. I guess our insurers will have to decide who had right of way. Thank you for taking the time to respond. It's very interesting to hear other people's POVs.

Millie23

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

I'm not sure how the OP can seek to argue that the other party was 100% at fault unless they were stationary at the time of the collision. Whilst you are correct with the quote from the Highway Code I would add that this is not the law and has little bearing on the liability for the accident, yes I agree that you shouldn't park the wrong way (ie against the flow of traffic) but we are not arguing about parking per se in this instance we are talking about the collision that occured before the other party parked up.

Mossycat

What makes you think that if both drivers are moving one cannot be 100% liable? I could give you loads of examples.

All I said was that the highway code rule could be used as additional evidence of negligence. Breaches of the highway code have been used to show negligence on innumerable cases.

You should always start with an allegation of 100% negligence on the other party.

We aren't talking about a "collision that occured before the other party parked up" we are talking about a collision that occurred whilst two people pulled out of parking spaces. In my view, the one who was parked in a manner contrary to a rule in the highway code has a high duty of care to ensure that it is safe to 1) cross the line of traffic travelling in the opposite direction to his intended line of traffic and 2) join the line of traffic travelling in the direction he intended to travel in.

In my view it is a very easy allegation to make that he was so focused on 1) that he forgot or paid too little attention to 2).

I'd rely heavily on res ipsa loquitur.

[PI Guy]

insurers often go with the path of least resistance. In a case like this both insurers will probably go with a 50/50 liability as the cheapest option.

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

What makes you think that if both drivers are moving one cannot be 100% liable? I could give you loads of examples.

All I said was that the highway code rule could be used as additional evidence of negligence. Breaches of the highway code have been used to show negligence on innumerable cases.

You should always start with an allegation of 100% negligence on the other party.

We aren't talking about a "collision that occured before the other party parked up" we are talking about a collision that occurred whilst two people pulled out of parking spaces. In my view, the one who was parked in a manner contrary to a rule in the highway code has a high duty of care to ensure that it is safe to 1) cross the line of traffic travelling in the opposite direction to his intended line of traffic and 2) join the line of traffic travelling in the direction he intended to travel in.

In my view it is a very easy allegation to make that he was so focused on 1) that he forgot or paid too little attention to 2).

I'd rely heavily on res ipsa loquitur.

My posts have been based on 15 years working in the Insurance Industry dealing specifically with motor claims.

Yes I accept that there are lots of examples that you could quote where both vehicles were moving at the time of impact and yet one party is found to be 100% at fault.

I doubt you will find any of them will involve a collision that was 'head on' with one car joining a main road and another pulling from the main road to park up. The highway code is a suggested set of rules which has no bearing or weight. Another Highway Code rule is to let buses pull out, are you saying that if a bus is indicating and pulls out into your path and an accident occurs that the bus driver is 100% not at fault because the Highway Code say you should let buses pull out and you didn't therefore the accident is your fault?

Anyway back to the case in hand, both drivers were travelling in a forward motion, at that point they would both have an equal duty of care to ensure that they were safe and also that they could stop if anyone or anything crossed their path. At that point it is 50/50 liability.

However, one of these vehicles is ON the main road and one is attempting to join it, the greater duty of care is on the one attempting to join moving traffic. The other party will argue that they kept a reasonable eye out for all likely hazards (ie traffic already on the main road).

Suppose the OP had pulled out and had hit a pedestrian who had occupied that space and was watching the traffic waiting for a gap in which to cross, the OP wouldn't have a chance of blaming the pedestrian 100% and nor will they in this case.

If this landed on my desk I would be offering 25% to the OP, if they argued I would weigh up their arguments and possibly increase to 50/50 to settle the claim.

Under no circumstances would I offer more than 50/50 because I know from much experience that should this proceed to Court it would be settled at 50/50 liability.

Unless the OP can add anything to their original post I stand by what I have said

Mossycat

Edited to say I am confused now, I thought the other driver was pulling into the parking space and parking up. Can the OP please clarify the exact position and intended path of the the other person.

Edited again I have re-read the OP and cannot work out how the front bumper of the OP's car was hit if they were facing the right way (direction of traffic) and the other person was behind them facing the wrong way, if that were the case and they both joined the road at the same time they would be moving away from each other

[Mossycat]

OK I have re-read it all again and now I think I get it

The OP was parked on the left (ie correctly) and left that parking space to join the main road in the direction they were facing.

Another car parked against the flow of traffic on the right hand side of the road and behind the OP's car also joined the main road.

Both vehicles were travelling in the same direction and a collision occurs.

If this is correct then the other party travelled a greater distance and was in effect already on the road when the collision occured. Without looking at the points of impact to both vehicles I would say 50/50. If collision damage indicated that one had hit the other I would look at how far back from the damage was either on the OP's offside wing or the other parties nearside wing, this would indicate who hit who. Without any independent witnesses confirming one of the vehicles was travelling at excess speed I would srtick at 50/50.

It matters not that the other vehicle was parked facing the wrong way, the fact is that they safely crossed back onto the correct side of the carriageway and that is where the accident occured on the correct side of the road.

Mossycat

Seems harsh I know but it's like having an accident with a car that has no road tax, you cannot argue that it shouldn't have been on the road and therefore you don't have to pay out if it is your fault, or hitting an uninsured motorist, they can still claim off of you for their losses (OK then you report them to the Police, but liability is still outwith that)

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Millie23,

Do you have comprehensive insurance?
You will have an excess to pay and this gives you an interest in the loss. If yo do not have comprehensive insurance, you will have to pay the full costs of your loss.

I do not agree with what others have said, I think they are mistaken.

In your shoes I would instruct my insurers not to accept any liability without first consulting me.

You are entitled to sue the other side for your loss. If you have comprehensive insurance you can and should sue for the entire cost of your repairs and losses not just the excess (the precedent for this is Morley v Moore [1936] 2 KB 359).

What Mossycat and others may say may work in their world much of the time. But bear in mind Mossycat has been talking from the perspective of the third party's insurers and as such he would offer as little as he thinks he can get away with.

Only a court can determine the correct apportionment of liability, anything else is a negotiation. My view is that your third party was on the wrong side of the road crossed to the correct side of the road without paying correct and appropriate attention to what was in his path.

That would be my argument.

You will not settle this with 100% liability unless you are prepared to go to court.

Bear in mind, your big loss is likely to be loss of any NCD. You will not get this back unless you are prepared to take the risk.

[Mossycat]

First off the Insurer has the ultimate say on accepting or denying liability, the OP will find it is a condition of their insurance that they do not accept liability following an accident and also that they agree to the ultimate decision of the insurer when it comes to negotiating a settlement. Whilst anyone can request that an Insurer does not settle on a 'split liability' basis without informing the policyholder of their intention the OP cannot insist on it. Well actually they can, they withdraw the request for indemnity away from their insurer and deal with the whole claim themselves, if they lose they cannot then pass it back to the insurer.

Secondly I was not answering this as though I was the insurer of the other vehicle I was answering it objectively.

At the time of writing I do not have details of the impact points so I cannot say which vehicle was the more in front, nor do I know of any allegations of speed.

What I do know is that the OP pulled out from a parking space and was involved in a collision with a vehicle already on the main road, the OP was in a moving vehicle and had a duty to ensure it was safe to do pull out. The fact they had a collision means that they failed to do that.

I also know that the other party was also already on the main road having come from a field of vision not anticipated by the OP, they were also in a moving vehicle and had a duty to ensure it was safe to proceed. The fact that they had a collision means that they failed to do that.

It is usual for policy holders to implicate the other driver as the responsible party, in circumstances like this we start off thinking hmmm both vehicles moving, one or both of them could have stopped, one or both of them could have taken evasive action so it looks like 50/50. Insurers have a duty to deal with claims as expediently as possible (both in time and in outlay). Insurers know the likely outcome of it if it went to Court, I say likely outcome because as has been pointed out only the Registrar or Judge can say exactly what % of liability they feel appropriate, but they base that on years of experience. Since it costs more money to go to Court it makes sense to settle without doing so.

The next thing both Insurers will take into account is the impact point, it is highly unlikely that it was the offside front corner of one car and the inside front corner of the other. More likely it will be the front of one car and the wing of another.

If it is the OP's front bumper and the other parties nearside wing this would indicate that the other party was in front and the OP drove into them. This would put more liability on the OP

If it was the OP's offside wing and the other parties front bumper this would indicate that the other party was behind the OP when the OP pulled out into their path, which again puts more liability on the OP.

The only other thing the impact damage will show is the angle of impact, if the other party was travelling straight forward and had already straightened up having come from the other side of the road then that's bad for the OP, if however the angle of impact damage indicates that they were 'at diagonals' then this helps the OP as it shows they came from an unexpected angle.

Forget the fact that they had been parked up BEFORE the accident that's irrelevent and consider this, if the third party had come at that angle because they had had to negotiate and obstacle in the road would we now be blaming that obstacle for the accident, answer no we wouldn't, therefore the fact they were parked up on the wrong side of the road prior to the accident isn't a determining factor.

My gut reaction to this based on experience is 50/50 and that it would be 50/50 if it went to Court.

Mossycat

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

If this landed on my desk I would be offering 25% to the OP, if they argued I would weigh up their arguments and possibly increase to 50/50 to settle the claim.

Originally Posted by Mossycat

Secondly I was not answering this as though I was the insurer of the other vehicle I was answering it objectively.

Hmmm?

Originally Posted by Mossycat

First off the Insurer has the ultimate say on accepting or denying liability, the OP will find it is a condition of their insurance that they do not accept liability following an accident and also that they agree to the ultimate decision of the insurer when it comes to negotiating a settlement.

No, the courts are the ultimate decision maker.
I have said noting about the insured in this case accepting liability, all I have said is that the OP should allege 100% liability on the third party.
There is no policy condition that the insured should accept the decision of the insurer where the insured receives less than a full indemnity. The insured is perfectly at liberty to sue both the third party and their own insurer.