Jump to content


Who`s to blame for accident - parallel prking


paul4lena
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2785 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

My wife had an accident parallel parking the other day.

It`s with the insurers at the moment but it would be good to have a view of who`s to blame

so we`re prepared for anything that they may come back with.

 

First the good news: It was a low speed impact and no one hurt.

 

The Incident:

My wife was parallel parking into a space on her side of the road.

She was positioned parallel to the car in front of the space

and had just started to reverse with the wheel going to full lock.

 

A car travelling from behind overtook her at this point

and my wifes front driver wheel and the other cars passenger wheel/arch

bumped as the car continued past us.

 

My wifes wheel was knocked out of alignment and the other car has scuffs on their wheel arch/wheel.

There was no other damage.

 

Our thoughts are that the other car passed too close (if they even should have passed)

and my wife was only just starting the turn manouver, as only my wifes wheel was hit.

 

From what I understand this indicates that they were only about 6 inches away from the car when passing,

otherwise they would have hit the front of my wifes car too as this would have been further out in the road if hit.

 

Any thoughts on how the blame might be allocated?

 

Feel free to ask any more about the incident in case I`ve missed anything relevant.

Many thanks.

 

I forgot to say that the other cars "REAR" passenger wheel arch/wheel bumped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely a 50/50 accident claim, unless there is clear CCTV evidence or independent witness evidence that helps both Insurers say one driver was clearly responsible.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue that it's the same as overtaking whilst making a turn.

I would also say it's reasonable to assume that when reverse parking like that,

the front is expected to "swing" out so the other driver shouldn't have proceeded to overtake.

 

 

I take it your wife had just looked over to her left to check her position

when this car appeared without notice and made the overtake?

 

Could also be argued that the overtaking driver didn't assess his manoeuvre correctly,

especially when overtaking a moving vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

was the car engaged in reverse? i'e white reversing light showing

did she have indicator going

in other words - were HER intentions clear..

 

 

sadly I doubt either will be able to prove or not either point.

so will be 50/50

 

 

dx

 

 

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it not be said that she was reversing and didn't hit the other car in the rear or front but on the side,

which would show that the other car hit her?

 

As if that car hadn't of been overtaking this incident wouldn't of occured?

 

And that would be the same if she was moving or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if she hit the rear wheel arch

then to me

that sounds like the car was already along side when she started the manoeuvre?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or she was part way through the manouever and the car overtook and clipped.

 

regardless, she shoul dhave been moving sowly and looking around all the time, stopping if necessary to check blind spots. It sounds as if she did what a lot of people do, and just look in one direction behind her and to the front nearside.

 

50/50

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have an independent witness I'd say 100% at fault.

 

As the manoeuvring party, your wife is to make sure it is cleat to start and carry on with the manoeuvre.

 

Whilst I'm not saying this didn't happen, with the damage to the other party being rear damage, it sounds like they managed to (mostly) get past and either by completing the swing when reversing, or pulling back out, this happened. Their story is going to be far more plausible than yours, meaning the balance of probability will fall in their favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a single carriageway two way street?

 

If it is, the posters so far are forgetting that the overtaking vehicle would have moved to the opposite carriageway. Could it be that they cut in a little sharply due to oncoming traffic?

 

The overtaking driver should have waited for the manouvre to be completed. If the above senario is correct, the overtaker is 100% at fault.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a single carriageway two way street?

 

If it is, the posters so far are forgetting that the overtaking vehicle would have moved to the opposite carriageway. Could it be that they cut in a little sharply due to oncoming traffic?

 

The overtaking driver should have waited for the manouvre to be completed. If the above senario is correct, the overtaker is 100% at fault.

 

The reality could well be that Insurers don't muck around and spend too much time on a small accident thinking about percentage of fault. Unless the evidence is clear, it is most likely to go down as a 50//50.

 

Perhaps there was room for the other car to pass by and the OP's wife swung out too far, as she lost control of her parking. Or the other car should not have tried to pass, when someone was parallel parking. For Insurers staff sat in both offices looking at the claim form, unless they think the evidence clearly support their driver being 100% not at fault, they probably won't bother and go with 50/50.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...