Who`s to blame for accident - parallel prking

[paul4lena 1]

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.

[unclebulgaria67 29,104]

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.

[DreamEater 1]

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.

[dx100uk 9,538]

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

[DreamEater 1]

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.

[dx100uk 9,538]

if she hit the rear wheel arch

then to me

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

[renegadeimp 2,290]

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

[Mwynci 522]

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.

[Gick 648]

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.

[unclebulgaria67 29,104]

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.

[paul4lena 1]

Hi All,

I`m still waiting to hear from the insurers on this one. I don`t know if no news is good news, or if it`s just a stalling thing?

Thanks,