Car Accident - Backed into While Parallel Parking - Who Is at Fault

Variableaperture on 13/02/2024 - 12:25
Last edited 13/02/2024 - 14:14 by 1 other user

So I was involved in a minor car accident earlier today, I have already submitted all the details to insurance, I don't believe I am at fault, but I am not 100% sure in this situation. What do you guys think?

I was reverse parallel parking into a space indicated and began backing into the space, as I was partially into the space the car parked in front of me began reversing to manoeuvre to leave the space.

His rear corner of the bumper collided with the point where my rear door closed (half damage on the rear passenger door and rear quarter panel)

Images for reference:

My Car
Other Car

Thanks for your input, I'll update when I get a verdict from insurance too.

Automotive

Comments

  • Duckie2hh on 13/02/2024 - 12:26
    -5

    If you were both moving, both at fault. Bad luck OP.

    • Variableaperture on 13/02/2024 - 12:32

      Damn, I thought that might be the case. I thought maybe because he stated moving while I was already moving it may be not at fault. But I’ll wait for the insurance verdict I guess.

    • bargaino on 13/02/2024 - 13:14
      +9

      Why is that? It is clear from the damage who hit whom.

      Other driver did not check mirrors. I'm not sure what OP could have done differently.
      Be insistent with your insurer, they can be lazy.

      • Duckie2hh on 13/02/2024 - 14:33
        -1

        Other side will claim that OP's car was also moving (trying to park). Therefore irrespective of damage, both will be at fault. Of course if there was a dashcam video showing who was moving and who was stationary, that would be a different story.

  • 87percent on 13/02/2024 - 12:27

    think it'll likely be "both at fault" scenario

  • Fredfloresjr on 13/02/2024 - 12:43
    +1

    Dashcam video "might" be able to favor you. Otherwise, you story vs his story.

    • Variableaperture on 13/02/2024 - 12:44

      No dashcam, though there is a witness. And maybe CCTV of the coffee shop where it happened.

  • mrkorrupt on 13/02/2024 - 12:44

    dashcam? should have got one yesterday?

    • Variableaperture on 13/02/2024 - 12:45
      +1

      Yep, I’ll get one today. Too late for this one, but better late than never.

    • bargaino on 13/02/2024 - 13:17

      How would that help here?

      They can be useful in carparks, even when other car is not in view, to show you were stopped when hit. But that doesn't apply here.

  • Jaduqimon on 13/02/2024 - 13:01
    +11

    Yeh common sense would say it's his fault as you could not have done anything else to prevent the hit. Assuming you didn't know he intended to reverse before you tried to parallel park behind him.

    He could have checked the surrounding before reversing his car.

  • orangetrain on 13/02/2024 - 13:11
    +3

    Sounds like parked car at fault. You were leaving road vs them trying to get onto road.

    Could you draw a MS paint diagram? I would have thought the parked car could see you right next to them!

    • Jake D on 13/02/2024 - 13:47
      +2

      Not if they were looking at their phone

    • Ghost47 on 14/02/2024 - 18:16

      I would have thought the parked car could see you right next to them!

      You would be very surprised how little people on our roads seem to notice these days. I've witnessed a lot of people, basically one every time I go night driving, who don't even notice their headlights aren't on even when they're on a near-pitch-black stretch of road. It's mind boggling really.

  • b0rnwithabeard on 13/02/2024 - 13:37
    +2

    insurance companies will generally place fault with the person reversing, so given that, as well as where on the cars the dents are (that also shows he hit you rather than the other way around), I'd say they would most likely say it's the other guy's at fault.

    • jv on 13/02/2024 - 15:45
      +3

      insurance companies will generally place fault with the person reversing

      In this case, they were both reversing.

  • roguescholar on 13/02/2024 - 13:45

    I think insurance would say that you are both at fault.

    However, in my opinion other persons car is damaged exactly where the parking sensors are, so they wilfully ignored the warnings from the sensors and still backed into you.

    • Broke-Ken on 13/02/2024 - 16:06

      However, in my opinion other persons car is damaged exactly where the parking sensors are, so they wilfully ignored the warnings from the sensors and still backed into you.

      I initially thought that as well, but looking at the image again, you can see they have an aftermarket towbar bar across the rear. I think, when they installed it, it triggered the parking sensors, so they have either learned to ignore the beep, or disabled it all together. Either way, they are still at fault, but curious as to how insurance will view it as both were reversing at the same time.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 13/02/2024 - 13:56
    +2

    An MS paint would help a lot to fully understand the issue and provide you with advice on who is at fault.

    When two cars are parking/moving in the carpark it is likely 50-50, meaning while your damage may cost more to fix you may get some pay out.

    If both sides submit an insurance claim, both may need to pay.

  • GordonD on 13/02/2024 - 14:14
    +2

    The positions of the damage on the side of your car and the rear of his shows you didn't run into him, he failed to look when reversing and ran into you. That makes it his fault.

  • apple2016 on 13/02/2024 - 14:40
    +1

    The parked car technically needs to give way to all traffic on the road.
    I am curious to what the insurance thinks.

  • Drakesy on 13/02/2024 - 14:55
    +1

    Car reversing was doing so dangerously imho if they didn't check their mirrors.

    Mitsubishi Pajero Sport's driver at fault.

  • jv on 13/02/2024 - 15:33
    +2

    Parked car needs to always give way…

    • deme on 15/02/2024 - 12:30
      -1

      always

      What if both cars are parked?

      • jv on 15/02/2024 - 12:33

        That isn't the case here.

        • deme on 15/02/2024 - 12:34
          -1

          So not always

          • jv on 15/02/2024 - 12:36

            @deme: That's not what I said.

            • deme on 15/02/2024 - 12:39
              -2

              @jv:

              Parked car needs to always give way…

              This you? https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14955707/redir

              • jv on 15/02/2024 - 12:40

                @deme: Yes, that is not what I was replying to though.

                • deme on 15/02/2024 - 12:49
                  -1

                  @jv: I linked to your own comment, are you saying you didn't reply to yourself? What's that got to do with anything?

                  • jv on 15/02/2024 - 13:19

                    @deme:

                    I linked to your own comment

                    That's not the one I was referring to.

                    • deme on 15/02/2024 - 14:44
                      -1

                      @jv: What were you referring to?

                      • jv on 15/02/2024 - 14:59

                        @deme: Your comment that I replied to.

  • Brian McGee on 13/02/2024 - 15:37
    +1

    I wonder what their reaction to the reverse sensors and blind spot monitor was?

    Obviously 'floor it and find out'.

  • CurlCurl on 13/02/2024 - 15:39
    -1

    Who is at fault if two cars reverse into each other?

    In cases where a car is backing out of a parking space and colliding with another vehicle, the car in reverse is usually found liable. However, if both vehicles were reversing simultaneously and a collision occurred, there may be a case of shared responsibility.

    • jv on 13/02/2024 - 15:46
      +5

      there may be a case of shared responsibility.

      One was moving from a 'parked' position and failed to give way…

    • CurlCurl on 13/02/2024 - 18:41

      Yes I know it wasn't in a car park but the same principle applies.

      This from a law firm.

      If a car is reversing out of a carpark and hits you from behind, the reversing car will be at fault
      If both vehicles are reversing simultaneously and collide, both will share equal fault and liability for the collision
      If both parties are reversing but one stops, the vehicle that continues to reverse and causes the collision will be at fault.

      https://www.gclaw.com.au/news/rear-end-collision-compensatio…

  • coffeeinmyveins on 13/02/2024 - 16:03
    +4

    I'm in the camp of "their fault" because as others have said, they were coming from a parked position and you were parkING from the road.

    Also they reversed into you, you didn't reverse into them, if what you're saying is true.

    If you have a witness then it helps.

    I'd be pretty pissed if I was found "at fault" in any capacity for this.

  • El cheepo on 14/02/2024 - 05:48
    +2

    Impressive that they didn’t even notice when you stopped along side them to back in.

    Man, some people have 0 spacial awareness.

    My vote is, insurance says 50/50 without dash cam.
    I don’t think it should be that way, they are obviously at fault, but thats how i think it will go.

  • AngusD on 15/02/2024 - 09:20

    Got to wonder WTF he was paying attention to to reverse into you there. Can't have checked his mirrors. Hell, I'm pretty sure those are reversing sensors visible in the photo of his car, so surely they must have started screaming at him the moment he put it into reverse?

  • Variableaperture on 16/02/2024 - 22:37

    So to update, he told his insurance that he was stationary and I reversed into him. Somehow hitting him with my side door.

    I disputed it. Checked with the witness and they said that he definitely reversed.

    Also the shop next to where it happened has a CCTV camera pointing right at where it happened. So I talked to the owner today and they are going to get the CCTV for me.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join