Driver Almost Takes Our Car Door off - Says We're at Fault and Won't Answer Calls

LIssun on 16/05/2025 - 23:08
Last edited 17/05/2025 - 10:51 by 1 other user

Hey all, just looking for a bit of advice.

The other day my partner was getting out of the car. She checked the rear-view mirror, saw nothing coming, and got out fully. Just as she stood up, a car came around the corner heading towards her. There wasn’t much room to move, so she kind of "sucked her gut in" and pulled the door in towards herself. The driver clipped the door—nearly hit my partner—and ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

The driver stopped and came out all frantic, saying the sun was in her eyes and she couldn’t see. They swapped details (well, the lady gave the bare minimum—just a phone number), and that was that. Now our door won’t close properly without pushing it down from the outside, and the window won’t go all the way down either.

Now the insurance part:

We’re only covered for third party. The other driver claimed it was our fault, and both insurers (RACT for her, AAMI for us) have sided with her. They’re saying my partner “created a hazard” by getting out of the car Reference, so there’s no point trying to dispute it.

We’ve tried calling and texting the other driver to talk it through, but she’s gone radio silent for three days now.

So here’s the question:

There’s no actual evidence, she admitted she couldn’t see, and my partner was almost taken out—has anyone had any luck disputing something like this? Or should we just cop the excess and higher premium?

Street view / diagram:

Automotive Accident Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

- - - - Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 12:16
        
        @Muppet Detector: Finally you admit it. Its what ive been saying in virtually every post in this thread.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 12:26
        
        @Euphemistic: The point you continue to miss is IT DOESNT MATTER what we don't know. For the purposes of this thread, it only matters what we DO KNOW. If this were to ever enter a legal arena, the only thing that matters is what you can prove regardless of what you know, believe or just make up.
        
        Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 12:33
        
        @Muppet Detector: For the purposes of this thread it is important to raise alternate options that could be pursued.
        
        The driver admitted fault, that in itself raises doubt that the open door was in the wrong, despite linked legislation. Dont you think if the driver thought the parked car was at fault theyd have denied they were at fault?
        
        You have continually avoided this point. Not that it's definitive, but that it raises doubts which require thinking about other actions.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 13:01
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        The driver stopped and came out all frantic, saying the sun was in her eyes and she couldn’t see.
        
        Is that what you're adopting as an admission of fault?
        
        That's not an admission of fault.
        
        The driver admitted fault, that in itself raises doubt that the open door was in the wrong, despite linked legislation.
        
        Legislation specifically says they can't leave their door open (or words to that effect) if it creates a hazard. Can't even exit car if in doing so you create a hazard.
        
        There is no caveat for "even if other driver was at fault"
        
        Even if the moving vehicle thought they were at fault at time of accident, clearly, in this scenario, they would have been WRONG.
        
        You have continually avoided this point.
        
        No i haven't. There is no point. You just made it up!
        
        For the purposes of this thread it is important to raise alternate options that could be pursued.
        
        You didn't raise alternative options, you point blank stated that my contribution was wrong because it relied upon the evidence and facts we have been given as opposed to whatever imaginary scenarios you insist on creating arguments about.
        
        Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 13:59
        
        @Muppet Detector: For crying out loud. Youre ignoring the stuff that adds the doubt yet toy continue to say "what we do know" is important. "I couldnt see" indicates lack of due care and attention, i.e. possible negligent driving.
        
        Perhaps the door did not "create a hazard". Are you aware of what constitues a hazard in this larticular bit of legialation? Maybe if the driver didnt have sun in their eyes, they would have been further right in the lane and would have missed the door.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 12:33
        
        @Euphemistic:
        
        Finally you admit it. Its what ive been saying in virtually every post in this thread.
        
        I agreed with tenpercent in that they were right about what they said in that post and thus I agreed with them.
        
        Tenpercent said I didn't know those things. That is true. I don't. Nor does anybody else in this thread.
        
        Ergo, they are imaginary facts not in evidence for the purposes of this thread.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 12:03
        
        @tenpercent: Actually, the legislation around getting out of a parked car says there was a hazard.
        
        If the OP was within their car park, don't you think they eould have included that somewhere in this thread by now (if not in the OP), instead of/in addition to the long winded description they did provide?
        
        If they told their insurer they were completely within their designated parking space, do you think they'd be providing the legislation about hazards they did?
        
        C'mon hey!
        
        Usually you at least try to make reasonable and well thought out contributions, often even with supporting evidence, but now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and introducing imaginary evidence without using common sense and ignoring established fact.
        
        It was interesting for a while, but I can't compete with Walt Disney impersonators.
  - tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 08:33
    
    Bingo.
djathome on 17/05/2025 - 09:38 Comment score below threshold.
- Jaduqimon on 17/05/2025 - 09:44
  
  +1
  
  They can counter claim and said the OP left the scene without asking for their details… again no dashcam footage or recording its yiur word against theirs. The only evidence is the damage to both cars
- TEER3X on 17/05/2025 - 10:45
  
  +2
  
  I'm almost certain they'd be wasting police time with hearsay.
  
  Unfortunately I think the OP needs to cough up and move on, it won't ultimately matter who was actually to blame.
- panorama on 17/05/2025 - 11:08
  
  +3
  
  Ever heard of making a false report to Police, into the frying pan enjoy the heat
  - just-human on 17/05/2025 - 12:17
    
    OP didn't say they provided their licence. It is a real crime, so why would it be a false report?
    - Bruceflix on 17/05/2025 - 21:09
      
      You don't need to provide your license in a crash. Name and address of driver and vehicle owner. Plate number and insurance details.
      That is all.
      - just-human on 17/05/2025 - 22:54
        
        @Bruceflix: Ah must be the state. In WA it is a crime to not provide.
        
        Bruceflix on 17/05/2025 - 22:57
        
        +1
        
        @just-human: It must be. As according to https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/resources/self-help-kits-and-…
        
        Drivers involved in a crash need to give their name, address, driver's licence number and car registration number (number plate) to anyone who has good reason for asking for those details. If the car belongs to someone else, the driver must also provide the owner's name.
        
        just-human on 18/05/2025 - 02:17
        
        @Bruceflix: I think this is good legislation. Helps avoid people giving false contact details and dodging liability.
- Krankite on 19/05/2025 - 09:06
  
  +1
  
  There is a claim with both drivers details, there is no reason for her personally to have anymore details.
Butterchurner on 17/05/2025 - 09:39

+2

About 20 years I had something similar except my door stayed within the marked bay at all times and the driver apologised on the day. I was insured by AAMI and they didn't fight it when the other side (from memory also AAMI) said I was at fault.
tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 09:42

+2

(3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.
Penalty: Fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.

Was it a legal park there or was it a no parking zone?
I would not be quick to side with the moving vehicle if it was legally parked. We can't just assume the person getting out of their car is always at fault because of Reg 269 part 3, otherwise we are also saying drivers should never get out of their cars from the driver's side door when parked on the side of a road (which is absurd).

If it is legal to park there then implicitly the people who decide where no-parking zones are (either the council's Local Traffic Committee or RMS for State roads) think it is safe to park a car and to get out of the car without causing a hazard. Drivers don't have the right take out people and car doors, they have to slow down and wait or avoid the person getting out of their car and the car door.

no point trying to dispute it.

Yes there is. There's several thousands of dollars of reasons to try to dispute it.

They need evidence to conclude your partner was at fault. And unless the other driver has dashcam footage (unlikely let's be honest) then all they are likely relying on is 'she said' vs your wife not disputing it.

Not disputing it is the worst thing you could do.

Edit: What this person said could go a long way to getting the insurers to side with your partner in the absense of conclusive evidence to prove which party was really at fault. If the other driver was not at fault why would she flee from the scene of the accident without providing her details and seemingly only providing a fake phone number?

Edit2: Update your diagram before providing that to the insurers as your side of the story. Your diagram shows your partner's car blocking the road even with the door closed. Draw it again with the road wider and show other cars parked ahead of your partner's car too. You want to convey that there was plenty of room to not hit your partner or her car door.
- Issun on 17/05/2025 - 09:51
  
  -3
  
  Thank you! Yeah I think I actually have somewhat of a case here. It's not that unbelievable that someone is inattentive while driving. If my partner was large, then it wouldn't have been the door that got hit, it would have been her!
  
  At least shared liability could be possible :)
  - JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 16:03
    
    +5
    
    Yeah I think I actually have somewhat of a case here
    
    You don't, both insurance companies have said you are at fault.
    
    unbelievable that someone is inattentive
    
    Agreed, someone so inattentive they opened a door out into traffic and hit a car!!
  - Krankite on 19/05/2025 - 09:10
    
    Need to be clear about whether the open door was in the second lane or not. I haven't seen anything about this either way but it is the key point. Either the door was in parking lane and the driver was being lazy and cutting the corner across the lanes or the door was in the driving lane creating the hazard.
- Fredorishi on 17/05/2025 - 10:00
  
  +3
  
  Clearly a hazard was caused or there wouldn't have been a collision. Nobody says "never get out of their car" - just don't get out when you're going to cause a hazard. Driver's certainly have the right to not expect people to open car doors directly in front of them. Perhaps the partner should have got back in the car and shut the door??
  
  Sounds like the insurance companies are happy with the amount of evidence. But sure. OP could initiate long and expensive legal proceedings they'll probably lose. Why not?
  - tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 10:22
    
    +1
    
    Sounds like the insurance companies are happy with the amount of evidence. But sure. OP could initiate long and expensive legal proceedings they'll probably lose.
    
    There's no need to go to the extent of any proceedings that cost any money and that's not what I am suggesting.
    
    I am suggesting disputing the other driver's version of events and presenting their own version of events in a convincing way that conveys what actually happened.
    
    Driver's certainly have the right to not expect people to open car doors directly in front of them.
    
    Yes, but it doesn't sound like the door was opened directly in front of the other driver. We don't even know if that's the version of events that the other driver gave to the insurers. From the OPs diagram it seems the moving vehicle driver had plenty of time to stop and if they were driving carefully also room to avoid the door entirely. That the moving vehicle driver did not stop is their own fault, not the OP's partner.
    
    @Issun, if you can get a photo or video whilst making a turn around that corner while another car is parked where your partner was parked that would be a better angle than the street view image to show that there was enough distance for the car to either stop or enough space to drive around your partner's door. If you can do it at the same time of day to show the sun glare too even better to support your partner's claim about the the other driver said.
    - Fredorishi on 17/05/2025 - 11:15
      
      +1
      
      Yes, but the OP has also clearly already made attempts to settle this dispute having spoken with the other party as well as two different inurance companies. It seems unlikely those parties would change their minds based on an MS paint diagram, but you never know your luck I guess.
      
      Given their apparent lack of evidence and their lack of even clear information provided in here, I would suggest that their chances of convincing anyone of anything would be precisely Buckleys and none.
      
      You're suggesting the other car had time to stop or drive around. It wouldn't need to do either of those things if the OP didn't cause the hazard in the first place.
      
      But sure, they're free to knock themselves out trying to prove they didn't. I don't see anyone else agreeing unless it gets taken to court and the OP wins.
    - Muppet Detector on 17/05/2025 - 20:34
      
      There's no need to go to the extent of any proceedings that cost any money(legalaid.nsw.gov.au) and that's not what I am suggesting.
      
      Sounds good, but why would Mario Kart enter into negotiations?
      
      They've got the most favourable outcome they're going to get?
      
      Why would they want to change the outcome?
      
      am suggesting disputing the other driver's version of events and presenting their own version of events in a convincing way that conveys what actually happened.
      
      The horse has bolted. Investigating with common sense costs money and there's literally not enough skin in the game to wander down that track.
      
      The facts are, car door was blocking the path of oncoming traffic. Law says you can't do that. There is no other proof available. At this level, it doesn't matter who said what to whom.
      
      Wanna start working in the grey and expecting some common sense? That's beyond the pay grade of the CTP insurance assessor.
      - tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 07:52
        
        -3
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        The facts are, car door was blocking the path of oncoming traffic. Law says you can't do that. There is no other proof available.
        
        OP and their partner should dispute that 'fact'. Perhaps the other driver was veering too far into parked cars. Sounds like it.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 08:21
        
        @tenpercent: Perhaps.
        
        But facts are, unless car driver left his lane and entered the designated car parking space, he doesn't appear to have done anything wrong.
        
        If both vehicles were fully contained within their designated zones, it doesn't matter if there was only .5mm gap, there would not have been a collision (especially one where the math/physics supports OP's description).
        
        There could only have been a collision if one of the vehicles was not fully contained within their designated areas. It makes no difference if driver "veered to far" if he never left his designated area or entered that of the parked car.
        
        OP's description indicates that it was their car which was not contained within its designated spot creating a hazard for the adjacent designated area within which the driver was using.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 08:25
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        But facts are, unless car driver left his lane and entered the designated car parking space, he doesn't appear to have done anything wrong.
        
        But facts are, unless the OP's partner's car door left their designated space and obstructed the lane, she doesn't appear to have done anything wrong.
        
        OP's description does not indicate whether that is the case or and also does not indicate it was not.
        
        The only fact we have is the other car hit her door.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 08:48
        
        @tenpercent: I agree.
        
        The whole thing seems hinky to me.
        
        I can't make the math or physics work with the description the OP has given us.
        
        For the travelling car to have hit the car door at an angle that caused it to fold back bending hinges (as opposed to being pushed into the car), without injuring the deplaning person, the door must have been open more than 46% with sufficient surface area to create sufficient force and momentum for the door to have opened in the way the OP described.
        
        If this is indeed the case, it means the car door was not contained within the designated parking area.
        
        I have no doubt that both parties contributed to the accident, but that the prevailing breach of duty rests with the person exiting the car.
        
        => we are assuming that car turned corner and travelled "some distance" with sun in their eyes, preventing them from seeing car door, but we don't know for how long their vision was impaired or what actions they were attempting to take when (if) they realised the problem.
        
        We are simply assuming they weren't driving within road conditions. We don't know that.
        
        What we do know is that OP did see car approaching and did not remove the hazard into the lane of that approaching car in time to avoid the collision.
        
        Sure, they did take evasive action, but this was obviously not enough and that doesn't excuse them or exclude their liability for creating the situation in the first place.
        
        Usually, as a starting position, I would consider the moving vehicle to have the dominant duty of care in this scenario, (and this was my starting position when I began to think about it), but as I have explained, the facts the OP has provided and the science suggests there is nothing to support that the moving vehicle is at fault.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:20
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        If this is indeed the case, it means the car door was not contained within the designated parking area.
        
        Or that moving car was being driven by someone who was not driving with due care and attention and possibly partially blinded by the sun glare as they came around the corner and they were never fully in their lane to begin with.
        
        We are simply assuming they weren't driving within road conditions. We don't know that.
        
        If the OP's partner was indeed already out of the vehicle midway through the usual safe process of exiting a parked vehicle from the driver's side, then the moving vehicle driver simpy could not have been driving to conditions, one of those conditions being someone up ahead is exiting their vehicle.
        
        and the science suggests
        
        Is this the 46% science you mentioned earlier in your comment? I would expect the door was closer to 25% open so that the force of a car zooming around the corner and clipping the tip of the door would be transferred through to the hinges which then deformed and also generated enough torque (not much is needed since a human arm does it normally) to push the door to a fully open position and then beyond that at which point I would expect the hinges to have sheared. The deformation and failure method (compression and shear vs shear only) of the hinges could provide some clues as to how wide the door was intially open. But we don't know that and it seems the insurers (and the majority of commenters here) have no interest in determining what happened with any certainty either.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 09:28
        
        @tenpercent: At 25% the math & physics says the car door would have been forced back into the car. There is not enough leverage or available surface area for any different scenario.
        
        Under 46% there simply is not enough force or surface area for the door to do what the OP describes or for the OP to avoid physical harm.
        
        You don't even need to do the math, just draw a picture.
        
        Anyway, you can be right if it means so much to you that you insist on making assumptions and creating facts we simply don't have.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:31
        
        @Muppet Detector: I said "closer to 25%", not "less than or equal to".
        
        You are making assumptions and creating facts we simply don't have.
        I'm proposing an alternative explanation that fits the facts and scenario we have.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 09:46
        
        @tenpercent: On the contrary, I didn't make assumptions. I did the math and applied known physics principles to what we have been told.
        
        The math and physics simply doesn't work under 46% There is no getting around that. Even 46% is generous and will only work using extreme outlier measurements.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:59
        
        @Muppet Detector: Show me the working out for your 46%.
        I suspect you've ignored the 3 dimensional shape of a typical car door.
        What have you assumed for the acceleration and mass?
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 09:34
        
        @tenpercent: If OP's door wasn't obstructing the adjacent designated driving area, why did they stop what they were doing, suck in their gut and pull the door as closed as they could towards them and continue to watch as the car approached them?
        
        If OP's door wasn't causing an obstruction, why not just say that instead of their long winded explanation of what they did do?
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:58
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        why did they stop what they were doing, suck in their gut and pull the door as closed as they could
        
        I would do the same if I saw a car come around the corner too fast at speeds that do not suit the conditions or that was not fully inside the designated driving area if I estimated I did not have time to close the door and run to safety.
        
        Even if their door was protruding into the designted driving area that does not automatically mean the OP's partner created a hazard.
        
        S269(3):
        
        (3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.
        
        This does not translate to:
        
        A person has created a hazard if they do the following things…
        
        Nor does it translate to:
        
        If there is an accident involving a person or their vehicle while they are doing any of the following things then they are at fault
        
        Nor does it translate to:
        
        Another person driving a vehicle gets a free pass to drive without due care and attention if another person further up the road has an open door
      - Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 08:30
        
        +1
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        The facts are, car door was blocking the path of oncoming traffic
        
        That is not an established fact. We have one persons account, in text. The only fact we have is car hit door.
        
        The other driver turned the corner without due care and attention as well as the door being open.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 08:24
        
        @Euphemistic: I can only go on what the OP has provided.
        
        I am not in a position to assume facts or invent situations that the OP hasn't provided or by his own admission, can't prove.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 08:57
        
        @Euphemistic: How do you know the other driver turned the corner without due care and attention?
        
        There is NOTHING in the OP to suggest this.
        
        Furthermore, whilst the driver of the moving vehicle is required to do so with due care and attention, the person exiting the stationery vehicle must ALSO do that with due care and attention.
        
        As for the door being opened… for this to happen in the way the OP has described, that car door WAS NOT contained within the designated parking space at the time of the accident which means it was protruding into the designated lane of the moving vehicle.
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 11:16
        
        @Muppet Detector: Sorry.
        
        Too late to edit.
        
        I am aware the correct spelling here is stationAry (which refers to car), as opposed to stationEry which refers to "papEr"
        
        Auto correct must have autocorrected it and I picked it up too late. Apologies.
- Succulent on 17/05/2025 - 10:38
  
  +2
  
  From the diagram and the picture, it seems like the car will aways need to swerve out to avoid the parking cars. But from the picture it seems that there is a continuous line in the mid, where car who swerve around could potentially breaching the middle continuous line? We could also argue as a person has fully stand out from the car(assuming this story is correct) for another car to keep driving and swerve outside the continous straight line instead of stopping and avoiding hazard of a person, thats not a safe driving isnt it?
  - tenpercent on 17/05/2025 - 10:46
    
    Looking at the street view picture it looks like there's plenty of visibility to see a parked car and open door, and plenty of distance to stop, unless the driver was zooming around the corner.
    - nobro25 on 18/05/2025 - 12:20
      
      You forgot the sun was in her eyes (hearsay) by still is the cause of not being having visibility.
    - lint on 19/05/2025 - 11:12
      
      +1
      
      If the driver of a vehicle passing has to stop, then the person opening the door has by definition caused a hazard and is liable.
      - tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 11:49
        
        -1
        
        @lint: Are you suggesting drivers parked in legal parking zones are not allowed to get out of their cars on the drivers' side unless it's the middle of the night and there's no cars at all, but if by some chance a random car speeds around a corner just as the parked driver is about to close their door and get off the road then the onus is on that person to not get hit?
        
        lint on 19/05/2025 - 13:12
        
        +1
        
        @tenpercent: No, you're being obtuse and going to extreme nonsensical arguments.
        
        The regulation says you must not cause a hazard at any time while opening a door, leaving a door open or getting out of a vehicle. If there are no vehicles during the entire procedure then you are not creating a hazard for others, but it is your responsibility to look for traffic at all times while doing so because as soon as there is, there is the chance you are a hazard. If the lanes are marked by lines and the door remains within the lane, then it would not be a hazard as it's not obstructing traffic.
        
        I don't know why this simple principle is so hard for you to understand?
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 14:55
        
        -1
        
        @lint: You're the one implying extremely nonsensical nonsense.
        
        it is your responsibility to look for traffic at all times while doing so because as soon as there is, there is the chance you are a hazard
        
        Yes, the chance, not the certainty. And the person exiting the vehicle is not simply a hazard because a bad driver zooms around the corner.
        
        Are you suggesting that a person safely midway through that procedure¹ should be held responsible for the actions and innactions of a bad driver zooming around the corner and who inattentively failed to drive with due care and in so doing side swiped a person and their vehicle?
        
        Or are you suggesting that either drivers parked in legal parking zones are simply not allowed to get out of their cars on the drivers' side (because it is always a hazard) unless it's the middle of the night and there's no cars at all, but if by some chance a random car speeds around a corner just as the parked driver is about to close their door and get off the road then the onus is on that person to not get hit? There is no circumstance in which the bad driver is at fault? It is always the person midway through exiting their vehicle who is at fault?
        
        That procedure being: check for traffic, if no traffic then open door, if still no traffic then step out of vehicle, <<midway point through process where OP's partner was side swiped>> then close door, then make your way off the road) ↩
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 20:57
        
        @tenpercent: He's not suggesting any of that. He was stating exactly what he said and the legislation supports him.
        
        You're the one introducing all those fanciful unproven hypotheticals that are not relevant to this thread because there is absolutely no proof that any of that happened or even a suggestion that the OP has access to that proof. He specifically said he had no proof.
        
        You are making up bad drivers, zooming, inattentive behaviour on the part of the moving vehicle, failure of due care, never allowed to exit from parked cars unless middle of the night, speeding, bad driver etc
        
        There is NO PROOF of any of that.
        
        We only know exactly what lint and the legislation says and what information the OP has provided.
        
        The regulation says you must not cause a hazard at any time while opening a door, leaving a door open or getting out of a vehicle. If there are no vehicles during the entire procedure then you are not creating a hazard for others,
        
        The legislation doesn't even provide any caveats, authorization, justification or excuse to deviate from those expectations.
        
        It doesn't even say "if it is safe to do so", thus the law does not even provide any expectation for the alighting driver of the parked car to make any subjective assessment.
        
        It simply says, "you cannot do it". No exceptions, not even for a tiny bit of time.
        
        If any part of themselves or their car is not wholly contained within their designated parking space for any amount of time, regardless of what they are doing, they are creating a hazard.
        
        The legislation is very specific about this.
        
        However, the legislation implies that the parked car can create that hazard as long as the trajectory/legal use of any vehicles legally using their designated area are not impacted.
        
        This means, if you do create a hazard, the policeman won't just book you for doing that. You only incur liability if that hazard results in an accident/ or other restriction of use by vehicles allowed to be there.
        
        It does mean, if your hazard creates any imposition on the adjoining designated area for legally moving vehicles, the parked car is liable for any harm caused by that imposition.
        
        If a driver feels they cannot park in that area and lawfully exit when an opportunity arises, they are not obliged to park there. They can choose to park somewhere else that they feel they can legally do so.
        
        Just because it doesn't prohibit you from parking there, doesn't mean you have to or even that you should park there, even if the road markings show a car where they may park.
        
        Obviously, it is legal to park your car there. However there is no guarantee of when or if you will be allowed to legally exit that parked car if you cannot completely do that within the designated parking space without impeding the use of the adjoining lane.
        
        If an unpaved road is open to the public or a road isn't closed/prohibited during heavy rain, or has a bunch of potholes, iced up, unsealed etc, it doesn't mean you have to drive on that road if you don't want to or even that you should.
        
        If you do use those roads when conditions are not favourable, you are liable for any undesirable repercussions that you cause.
        
        The fact that using those designated areas during those times is not prohibited, does not infer they are safe to use at that time or any other time for any or all vehicles.
        
        The same principle applies to the car parks subject to that legislation in this thread. You can park there whenever you want. But if you can't do it or any subsequent actions (such as exiting that parked vehicle) without adhering to the road rules, you do not have to use that parking area at that or any other time.
        
        Best advice? Only park there when you can comply with the law.
    - Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 20:18
      
      If there was plenty of distance for the moving car to see a parked car and an open door, wouldn't that mean there was plenty of room for the parked car to see the moving car?
      
      Oh wait, the OP did see the moving car. They even watched it as it approached them.
      
      Read somewhere the text book Pocket Guide to interpersonal neurobiology by Daniel J Seigal) for motor memory, fight or flight response to occur it takes the brain 1.5 seconds to recognise a situation (ergo, it is not instant) and a further 1.5 seconds to begin to respond (book was actually referring to facial expression recognition and other non verbal communication techniques, but the same science transfers to this situation as response to unexpected traffic hazard requires flight or fright response)
      
      If this is true (and it is, I just cbf finding a link to prove it - but you can knock yourself out if you need verification), it means it takes at least 3 seconds to even begin to stop and/or take evasive action PLUS the time it takes for that stopping or evasive action to occur.
      
      We don't have enough information to know what speed the vehicle was even moving far less if it was slowing down/speeding up to determine how long it would take the car to come to a complete stop or perform other evasive manoeuvres once it recognised the sun was impairing their vision.
      
      Looking at that picture in the OP link, it is very unlikely that the moving vehicle could see that the car door was open on the parked car whilst they were in the lane from which they turned left to enter the road they ended up travelling on/where they encountered OP's parked car.
      
      It would not have been until they turned left onto that road and moved into their lane and able to look ahead and to the left and able to anticipate potential hazards ahead from those parked cars.
      
      They would not have been able to see the right hand side of the parked car to determine if the car door was open before then even without the sun in their eyes.
      
      Should driver of moving vehicle anticipated a parked car up ahead on the road they were turning into was obstructing their designated driving space?
      
      Perhaps (assuming they could even see a car parked there before they turned or there was signage indicating that there might be), but let's assume that moving vehicle could see the parked car before they turned…
      
      But if you're going to impose that duty on the moving vehicle, you also need to impose a similar duty on the parked car meaning they also needed to anticipate that a car may turn left onto their road AND anticipate that the sun would impair the vision of the approaching car because they were in the best position to observe this.
      
      So how about we just dispose of those strawmen and not even go down those rabbit holes, eh?
      
      If the sun was in the eyes of the moving vehicle as they approached the parked car, it could not have been in their eyes before they turned left and straightened up on that road to look ahead in the direction they were now travelling. Those two roads are facing completely different directions.
      
      This means there was no such vision impairment for the stationary vehicle as they had a clear unobstructed view from their car backwards in the direction from where the moving vehicle was approaching. They were looking away from the sun).
      
      Additionally, we do not know for how long the sun was in the eyes of the moving vehicle or even if they were attempting to take action to restore safe driving conditions for us to make any decisions about whether they were driving without due care and attention.
      
      Remember, once they turned onto that road, by the time their car had completed the turn to be in the direction/position where the sun was in their eyes:
      
      a) they not only had to evaluate potential hazards to their left (the parked cars among other things)
      
      b) but also those that may have been on their right if they needed to cross an unbroken lane into oncoming traffic to avoid a hazard on the left (Same obligation even if the centre line was broken) and,
      
      c)They would have also had to have assessed any potential harm that may occur from behind if they suddenly applied the brakes coming to a complete stop the moment they realised their vision was impaired.
      
      This means that in that short amount of time, they had to recognise their vision impairment and determine that they needed to take measures to counteract that.
      
      They then needed to identify and assess all of those three potential hazard areas in the few seconds it took them to encounter that car door once they turned onto that road.
      
      Just because they did hit that car door does not mean they were not driving with due care and attention (remember for civil law, this is on the balance of probabilities of what a reasonable person would do in the same situation).
      
      The moving vehicle may well have been in the process of slowing down with who knows what intention to restore safe driving conditions, when they hit the parked car door. All they have said was "the sun was in their eyes".
      
      That in itself does not indicate a lack of care, negligence or breach of duty. Nor does it indicate that they failed to legally drive within the conditions of the road, that they had time to take evasive action or that they failed to do so.
      
      They cannot control the position of the sun and it is not illegal if this happens to them. They can only begin to respond once they realise the sun is impairing their vision.
      
      No law would require any regular road user to be aware of where the sun might be/ if it might impair your vision ahead of time regardless of where they were driving. You can only be expected to respond to that situation when you realise it occurs.
      
      For the sun to be in your eyes when driving, not only do you need to be aware of what direction it is facing/shining, but also at what angle the sun is shining/ how low down in sky is/is it behind/obstructed by any buildings or mountains etc as well as knowing how your car/seat height affects the direction of the sun into your field of vision.
      
      It is just not feasible to expect any reasonable person or regular driver to anticipate that or how it may affect you before it actually happens and there is no law saying it does.
      
      Maybe they were in the process of identifying a safe place and safe manner to pull over (or other evasive manoeuvre) and just didn't have the time or the ability to assess all three potential directions of hazards to avoid hitting that car door in time.
      
      Just because they didn't come to an immediate complete stop once they realised the sun was in their eyes, does not mean that they were not driving with due care and attention.
      
      Furthermore, it doesn't even mean they were speeding or zooming around the corner or changing radio stations or engaging in any other dangerous/undesirable/prohibited behaviour.
      
      We simply do not know any of that and apparently, neither does the OP as all he has said is that the sun was in the eyes of the driver of moving vehicle.
      
      There is no indication (or proof, or even common sense) of when that started to happen, for how long it (vision impairment) was happening or that the moving vehicle was not driving along those roads and intersection within all required legal parameters, limitations, caveats, authorisations, justifications or excuses.
      
      OP has no supporting proof and I bet you all the money in my pocket, if the other driver does have it, they're not going to proffer it.
      
      The facts that we do have suggest the moving vehicle was doing so within legal parameters within the area of the road that was designated to them.
      
      The OP has not said that their car was wholly contained within the designated parking space nor that the moving car moved, veered, travelled or did anything else to place itself within the designated parking space. The OP never even alluded to the possibility that the moving vehicle was not travelling wholly within its designated area and apparently cannot prove otherwise.
      
      Furthermore, common sense (with the help of the street view from the link in OP) indicates that even if the stationary car was parked hard against the street kerb, there is no way a human and a car door opened at an angle to permit the human to be there, could all fit within the markings of the designated parking space.
      
      This means, even without OP returning to (falsely) stipulate their car was wholly contained within their designated parking area, (we know it wasn't), which means that the open car door was creating a hazard inside the designated area of the adjacent lane where the moving vehicle was allowed to travel within legal parameters.
      
      This means there is no need to speculate/hypothesize/invent any scenarios where the moving vehicle was speeding/zooming and/or not travelling within their designated area.
      
      Thus, we do know that the car door created a hazard in the designated area of the moving vehicle just because the moving car was able to make contact with it.
      
      The law says moving vehicle must stay within their designated lane. It doesn't say they can only use the exact middle of that lane. It doesn't say they must travel any given distance away from anything to their left or right, as long as they are travelling somewhere within their designated lane markings.
      
      Similarly, the parked car is allowed to be anywhere within its designated parking area. (If both cars were wholly within their designated areas, there would have been a gap of however thick the white lines on the road are between the two vehicles).
      
      The legislation says they cannot exit that vehicle or impede any area outside their designated parking area. From memory, it doesn't even say "unless it is safe to do so". Therefor, if someone acting legally within their designated area hits any part (or person) of a parked car in that area, that parked car has created a hazard.
      
      Yes. It is legal for them to park in that designated parking space (presumably - might be signs specifying times, but we can assume the parking there is unlimited as we have not been told differently).
      
      It is not legal for them to create a hazard outside that designated parking area at any time, regardless of what they are doing or for how long they were doing it. The legislation is specific about this.
      
      We also know that the legislation specifically prohibits those parked cars from creating that hazard.
      
      None of us knows anything else and OP has stated he has no proof to establish any other scenario or outcome.
      
      OP can say "car swerved", "car was speeding", "car was not driving with due care and attention" hell, he can even say "that damned driver saw me, pointed their finger at her pretending they were shooting a gun, intentionally aimed their car at my wife with the intention of hitting her, intentionally swerved as it drove past the first time just to scare her then reversed back, took aim again and then actually hit her and then after stopping, leapt out of their car, approached the wife with raised fists and a menacing stare, kicked her tyres, took responsibility for their actions, bragged about them, laughed at the wife, taunted her, air punching and made threats to get her better next time".
      
      Unfortunately, OP cannot prove any of that (and neither can we). He cannot even prove that he wasn't given all of the correct, required details when the other car stopped and exchanged details.
      
      All the driver of the moving vehicle has to do is say "I didn't do any of those actions and I did give correct identification. Furthermore, I was driving with due care and attention for the conditions of the road in the manner that I was legally required to".
      
      From that position, all of the road rules and legislation says the stationary driver is at fault, supporting the actions of the moving vehicle.
      
      This puts the onus on the OP to provide proof that it was the moving vehicle that was at fault/breached their duty of care, and the OP has no evidence to prove that.
      
      An alternative theory is proof of nothing.
      
      OP can't even prove that they gave due care and attention (or even looked before opening car door) or when they opened the car door, and the onus is on them to prove that if a finding of contributory negligence was even possible.
  - 2025 on 17/05/2025 - 11:33
    
    +2
    
    it’s unclear if those signs are parking signs or not, so OP, depending on their vehicle and how they parked, could’ve actually broken this rule too
    
    If the road has a continuous dividing line or a dividing strip, the driver must position the vehicle at least 3 metres from the continuous dividing line or dividing strip, unless otherwise indicated by information on or with a parking control sign.
    
    3m is enough space to pass a vehicle without crossing the dividing line.
    
    And if it turns out that with the door open, there is less than 3m between the door edge and the line, if I was the other party, I would argue that while some of OPs vehicle was positioned 3m from the line, not all of it was. The door is part of the vehicle.
- 2025 on 17/05/2025 - 11:17
  
  +4
  
  they have to slow down and wait or avoid the person getting out of their car and the car door.
  
  Slow down for what? The hazard that was created by opening the door? The hazard that is specifically forbidden by law?!? Ahaha
  
  It is on the people in the car to slow down and wait before opening the doors, not other road users.
  
  Of course one must try to avoid an accident if possible, but this situation and that section of the law make it clear to me that the section exists to make the door opener responsible in situations like this, and attempt to stop people swinging their doors open in a manner which creates a hazard.
  
  she admitted she couldn’t see…
  
  …the hazard that OP created. That’s why there is a law against it
  - tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 07:57
    
    -2
    
    That’s why there is a law against it
    
    There is no law against safely getting out of your vehicle in a legal parking zone. That the other driver did not slow down or give way is the fault here. Pedestrians aren't allowed to create hazards blocking the road too, but they're allowed to safely cross at a pedestrian crossing. By your logic the other driver is allowed to clip pedestrians crossing at pedestrian crossings and can't be considered at fault.
    - 2025 on 18/05/2025 - 12:25
      
      lol argue with the legislation not me
      And the insurance companies
      - tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 16:45
        
        @2025: What legislation?
        
        There is no law against safely getting out of your vehicle in a legal parking zone.
        
        2025 on 18/05/2025 - 17:34
        
        @tenpercent: I think we ozbargain sleuths and the OP and the insurance agency found something, it basically makes creating a hazard with a car door illegal.
        
        Are you suggesting an open door on a public road isn’t a hazard?
        
        tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 18:30
        
        @2025:
        
        Are you suggesting an open door on a public road isn’t a hazard?
        
        Yes, sometimes.
        
        2025 on 18/05/2025 - 18:32
        
        @tenpercent: Ok, glad we can partially agree lol.
        
        Is standing on the traffic side of a parked car generally hazardous?
        
        tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 18:39
        
        @2025:
        
        Is standing on the traffic side of a parked car generally hazardous?
        
        Depends on the road, the time of day, if you're a fatty or a vegan.
        
        Generally no because generally people don't hang out there and other drivers generally drive safely with full knowledge that people get into and out of cars parked on the side of the road. The parked car drivers generally check for incoming traffic and if clear they open the door then exit the vehicle then close the door then make their way from the traffic side of the parked car. Other drivers generally do not speed around corners so fast that they don't have time to react or brake for someone exiting their vehicle further ahead.
        
        2025 on 18/05/2025 - 18:54
        
        @tenpercent: Hmm, so there are two scenarios here. OP had just opened their door, and didn’t check behind them and notice the car turning left.
        
        The other scenario is that they were standing there for some time, asking to be hit.
        
        If that’s the case, I would suggest high vis and traffic control, after all, that is what other people do when spending any length of time on a road.
        
        Ever see a trolly collector without high vis? Road workers? Emergency services?
        
        They recognise that it’s hazardous.
        
        It is illegal for pedestrians to create a hazard or obstruct drivers, s236 of the tassie legislation.
        
        Maybe OP could fight this, but if I was on the other side, I would push for s236 to be applied in addition to the section about car doors. More penalty units = tougher pill for OP to swallow.
        
        Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 19:18
        
        +1
        
        @2025: There's a third scenario, the other driver was not driving with due care and attention or is just plain incompetent.
        
        2025 on 18/05/2025 - 19:21
        
        +1
        
        @Euphemistic: Yes, and I believe that once driving is automated, the thought of a robot hitting a car like this would be unheard of. That obviously plays a part, no competent driver would hit any part of another car except under extremely limited circumstances.
        
        Unfortunately our legislation seems to be based on a “car first” framework, pedestrians are relegated to the footpaths and crossings, and it is more often than not seen as the pedestrians fault when they are hit on the road.
        
        That’s the point I’m trying to make, that in our “car first” nation, the driver doesn’t seem to be accountable in this scenario based on our collective understanding of the rules and facts presented here.
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 07:05
        
        @2025:
        
        pedestrians are relegated to the footpaths and crossings
        
        And yet there are legal areas to park on the side of the road and no one expects the driver to climb through the inside of the car and get out the passenger side door.
        
        They recognise that it’s hazardous.
        
        The existence of legal parking areas on the side of the road indicates recognition that it's not inherently hazardous.
        
        the driver doesn’t seem to be accountable in this scenario based on our collective understanding of the rules and facts presented here.
        
        On the contrary, myself and others are suggesting it just as easily could have been the moving vehicle's driver who is at fault here.
        
        I would push for s236 to be applied in addition to the section about car doors. More penalty units = tougher pill for OP to swallow.
        
        That would be a d*ck move. Besides the people who issue fines will not do so. They rely on a higher standard of evidence than the insurers' blind acceptance of one sun glare blinded driver's probably false version of events.
        
        2025 on 19/05/2025 - 09:07
        
        @tenpercent: All the evidence they need is the damaged car door. Obviously a hazard was created, and it resulted in damage. If the door was closed, how could it possibly be folded back.
        
        OFC no one expects them to climb through the door. If one is waiting for traffic to pass and safely exits the vehicle, they aren’t impeding or creating a hazard.
        
        The mere fact that they were hit is proof that it was a hazard. That is why the insurance agencies have gone against OP.
        
        And yes, you are suggesting that because you don’t understand that it is always the person with the open door’s fault. The law is written to clearly transfer liability to them.
        
        It is written in such a way to catch all circumstances, as legislators can’t possibly think of every single scenario. Having a door open, which results in it being hit, is a hazard.
        
        And wtf, I hope you don’t have kids. To suggest that pedestrians everywhere on a public road isn’t hazardous is just lunacy.
        
        Dooring offences are common across the world. I would suggest that you seek out all the lawyers with blog posts about this very thing, legislators, and road user groups to campaign against this if you believe it’s these laws are not justified.
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 11:52
        
        @2025:
        
        The mere fact that they were hit is proof that it was a hazard.
        
        Or it is proof that a bad driver zoomed around a corner, possibly blinded by sun glare, and was generally not driving with due care and attention.
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 11:54
        
        @2025:
        
        To suggest that pedestrians everywhere on a public road isn’t hazardous is just lunacy.
        
        I have not suggested that.
        
        But you suggesting that I have suggested that (which I have not) is in turn suggesting (i.e. you are suggesting) that the other driver is also allowed to zoom around corners, fail to drive with due care and attention and then clip pedestrians crossing at pedestrian crossings and not be considered at fault.
        
        2025 on 19/05/2025 - 12:13
        
        @tenpercent: It’s not a pedestrian crossing, and I’m fully aware of s81 which makes failing to give way at a pedestrian crossing an offence
        
        Did you know jaywalking is an offence too?
        
        The existence of legal parking areas on the side of the road indicates recognition that it's not inherently hazardous.
        
        The many laws preventing pedestrians free access to roadways suggest otherwise
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 12:16
        
        @2025:
        
        It’s not a pedestrian crossing,
        
        No it's an analogy for your lack of logic.
        
        You know what's sad. That you can quote the specific sections. It's like talking to one of those people who memorize the Bible off by heart verse by verse, only sadder.
        
        2025 on 19/05/2025 - 12:22
        
        @tenpercent: Yes, researching a topic and basing replies on truth and fact and common law might seem sad to those with uninformed and unrealistic expectations, and it is your right to have whatever emotional reaction you’re experiencing right now.
        
        The existence of legal parking areas on the side of the road indicates recognition that it's not inherently hazardous.
        
        So firearms aren’t hazardous? Plenty of legal firearms around, the law allows them. Beaches, because they’re there, are safe?
        
        Swimming pools are inherently hazardous. As are cooktops, open fires and many other activities we do everyday. Just because a particular activity hasn’t been legislated against doesn’t necessarily mitigate any risks associated with them. Our powers that be have decided the risks of allowing parking on public roads are outweighed by the benefits, and inserted some legislation to ensure that the pedestrians are accountable for their actions.
        
        Our legal system is based on the fact anything is allowed, until it is not. Pedestrians with car doors are clearly not allowed to obstruct traffic or create a hazard.
        
        tenpercent on 19/05/2025 - 15:03
        
        @2025:
        
        Pedestrians with car doors are clearly not allowed to obstruct traffic or create a hazard.
        
        I think our difference of opinion is about who caused the hazard. The person safely midway exiting their vehicle, or the bad driver zooming around the corner, blinded by sun glare and who inattentively failed to drive with due care and in so doing side swiped the person and their vehicle?
        
        Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter the circumstances nor how bad the driver of the moving vehicle was driving, it is always the person exiting the parked vehicle who is at fault regardless?
        
        I don't think you're reading the regs correctly.
        
        S269(3):
        
        (3) A person must not cause a hazard to any person or vehicle by opening a door of a vehicle, leaving a door of a vehicle open, or getting off, or out of, a vehicle.
        
        This does not translate to:
        
        A person has created a hazard if they do the following things…
        
        Nor does it translate to:
        
        If there is an accident involving a person or their vehicle while they are doing any of the following things then they are at fault
        
        2025 on 19/05/2025 - 18:36
        
        @tenpercent:
        
        I think our difference of opinion is about who caused the hazard. The person safely midway exiting their vehicle, or the bad driver zooming around the corner, blinded by sun glare and who inattentively failed to drive with due care and in so doing side swiped the person and their vehicle?
        
        Yea, it is. I mentioned that at the start.
        
        There are indeed ways to be a pedestrian without causing a hazard, and ways to open doors into traffic while reducing the hazard, but it’s still not wise. To me, opening doors into traffic is inherently hazardous.
        
        My comment about people standing there, on the traffic side, without high vis, was a tongue in cheek take on a dangerous situation to be in.
        
        It just seems like that law was written to be a “catch all” for dumb stuff. Eg they could probably use it against people protesting.
        
        To be clear - I fully agree they don’t make pedestrians liable in all situations either.
        
        It’s a pet peeve of mine, I hate people opening their doors into traffic when there are gaps if they just wait a second. I know I won’t clip their door or their face, but I can’t say the same about the people I share the road with.
        
        tenpercent on 21/05/2025 - 20:22
        
        @2025:
        
        when there are gaps if they just wait a second.
        
        Clearly there was a gap as the OP's partner was already out of the vehicle. So clearly the moving vehicle driver was at fault.
        
        2025 on 21/05/2025 - 21:41
        
        @tenpercent: Let’s say OP wants to seek damages. If this were to get to court, we would hope it would ask:
        
        was OP negligent
        
        was the driver negligent
        
        did established negligence contribute to the damage
        
        who is ultimately liable
        
        Sunglare does not relieve the driver of fault, a quick case law search for sunglare makes this clear - one is expected to drive to the conditions and slow down.
        
        The driver isn’t expect to foresee every single hazard imaginable. But they are expected to be accountable for reasonably foreseeable hazards.
        
        Here, you have a strong point in that it was a designated parking zone, with a parked car, therefore it is reasonable that someone may be exiting or entering the vehicle. However, it is still not reasonable to assume that the door will pop out as the car is passing without any notice to the driver. The rules mentioned before make it clear that the person in the parked car shall not do this, as do cases regarding cyclists and car doors.
        
        It seems to me that the situation hinges on when the door was opened, in relation to the position of the car coming around the corner, and if they had enough time to react.
        
        OP is saying they did, but they have suffered financially.
        
        I somewhat agree, in that if the OP has access to any evidence at all, whether CCTV from shops, or independent witness statements, they might have a case, assuming that the door was opened well before the other car approached.
        
        Muppet Detector on 22/05/2025 - 02:03
        
        @2025: Negligence starts with establishing who had a duty of care to whom and then what was that duty.
        
        They both had a duty.
        
        Who breached that duty?
        
        Which breach caused the harm?
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 09:17
        
        @tenpercent: If she got out safely, how did she get hit?
        
        The law presumably allowed her to park there. It does not give her permission to do that (or exit the car), in a manner that creates a hazard for oncoming traffic.
        
        Pretty sure, there is a condition on her exiting the vehicle of "when it is safe to do so". Clearly, it wasn't safe to do so.
        
        Equally, there is no law against a vehicle travelling within legal conditions within their designated areas. By definition, they are allowed to do this safely without other people creating obstacles/hazards within the course they are legally allowed to travel.
        
        If an object must create a hazard, they need to provide a hazard warning. This is why vehicles have hazard lights, some have hazard signs inside their boots and bonnets. It is why road safety vehicles and operations provide required signage and/or witches hats etc.
        
        Simply leaving part of your car extruding from a designated parking/travelling area, thus impacting/obstructing the designated area of others is not sufficient indication or notification of a hazard in that adjacent area.
        
        You seem to continue to assume that the driver of the moving vehicle was "a bad driver" or "zoomed around the corner/up the road", but have no proof to support this. Not even the OP suggests this.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:21
        
        @Muppet Detector:
        
        Clearly, it wasn't safe to do so.
        
        Or it was safe to do so but then midway through the process a blinded driver zoomed around the corner and clipped her car.
        
        You seem to continue to assume that the driver of the moving vehicle was "a bad driver" or "zoomed around the corner/up the road", but have no proof to support this. Not even the OP suggests this.
        
        Equally you seem to assume the OP's partner was sticking out into the driving lane and also had not begun the process of exiting the vehicle "when it was safe to do so" just because a vehicle hit them. Not even the OP suggests this.
        
        I am deducing that because the OP's partner was already midway through the process with her person outside of her vehicle already that it was safe to do so and therefore she did not create a hazard and so it must be that the other driver was not driving to conditions and if so is definitionally a bad driver.
    - Muppet Detector on 19/05/2025 - 18:42
      
      +1
      
      Safe to say it wasn't very safe if they got hit by a car.
      - tenpercent on 21/05/2025 - 20:21
        
        @Muppet Detector: Safe to say the moving vehicle driver was not driving safely with due care and attention or is just plain incompetent if they hit a car door well down the road from their turn.
        
        Muppet Detector on 21/05/2025 - 20:24
        
        @tenpercent: The person exiting the car had one job…
        
        tenpercent on 21/05/2025 - 20:25
        
        @Muppet Detector: Was that job to forsee that a bad driver would zoom around the corner and nearly take them out before they had a chance to shut their car door and get off the road?
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 21:53
        
        @tenpercent:
        
        Was that job to forsee that a bad driver would zoom around the corner and nearly take them out before they had a chance to shut their car door and get off the road?
        
        The OP hasn't mentioned a driver like that?
        
        Nowhere has the OP claimed that there was a bad driver in the moving vehicle to which he is referring.
        
        Furthermore, the OP has not even implied, far less stipulated, that the car to which he is referring zoomed around a corner.
        
        The only thing the OP said was that their partner created an unlawful hazard that an approaching vehicle was unable to avoid.
        
        Euphemistic on 21/05/2025 - 22:34
        
        +1
        
        @Muppet Detector: The driver also had a job to do.
        
        Muppet Detector on 22/05/2025 - 02:05
        
        @Euphemistic: The driver had several jobs to do.
        
        tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 09:28
        
        @Euphemistic: Apparently you get a free pass to hit people as long as they are exiting their vehicle.
        
        /s
        
        Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 22:01
        
        @tenpercent: rolls eyes
        
        Nobody has even alluded to that scenario.
        
        They are saying that a person who is legally using their designated area of the public road in this thread with this legislation will not be liable for any harm caused to another person/vehicle that results from another person who is not lawfully using their designated area.
        
        They are saying that the fault/liability lays with the person who is not using their designated area legally.
    - Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 21:45
      
      There is no law against safely getting out of your vehicle in a legal parking zone
      
      Apparently there is in this parking zone in NSW at the time the OP was parked there.
      
      The legislation provided in this thread is quite clear about that.
      
      It specifies that it is not safe (or legal) to exit your vehicle if in doing so, you impede the use of the area outside the designated area.
      
      It doesn't even have the caveat for impeding the lawful use of the outside area.
      
      LOL, by the looks of it, not even the passenger can exit the car if in doing so their actions cause a hazard which impedes the lawful use of the footpath!
      
      => might be wrong on that last bit (in which case I'm sorry), as I only referred to that which was posted in the thread, I didn't go back and check the legislation at the source.
      
      That the other driver did not slow down or give way is the fault here.
      
      Apparently not.
      
      Sure, the car seems to be allowed to legally park there. There is even an unbroken solid white line identifying the perimeter of that designated parking area.
      
      However, the legislation stipulates that there is no guarantee when you can exit from the parked car, but it does stipulate when you can't.
      
      Just because you're not prohibited from parking in a particular area, doesn't give you permission to do any other activity which breaks another law.
      
      It doesn't even say you have to park there. Nor does it say that you should. It just says you can't impede the use of the area outside the designated parking area.
      
      Nearly finished making stuff up yet?
- Muppet Detector on 17/05/2025 - 20:22
  
  -3
  
  Excellent breakdown.
  
  I believe that you make some great points which provide standing for a strong defence.
  
  Unfortunately, I think it will be an expensive exercise to have this reasoning considered.
  
  The lower level dudes ticking boxes are only interested in the line of least resistance. They're not inclined to take a deep dive into the complexities of the situation because realistically, there is no real damage or significant injury.
  
  The fact the OP had time to get out of the car after opening the door suggests they didn't unexpectedly swing open the door into the path of oncoming traffic.
  
  That alone suggests that a driver who hit that car was probably not driving in a manner cognisant with being aware of their surroundings or driving to suit the conditions of the road.
  
  I mean, this isn't like that short white dog that suddenly leapt from between two parked cars onto the road in front of oncoming traffic.
  
  And it's not that unpredictable struggling toddler who manages to wrench their hand free from their parent's grasp before unexpectedly dashing out onto the road.
  
  This woman hit a freakin car! I mean, a two tonne chunk of metal hanging out on the side of the road and this muppet says even though she was paying attention, she couldn't see the thing?
  
  Or is she saying that she did see it, but because their door was illegally opened, she was gonna teach em a lesson and smack into it - maybe scare the other driver a bit and send her a message not to do that shit again?
  
  It could also be said that the blind dodger car driver was in the best position to see what was happening and should even be expected to anticipate this situation. Afterall, if they were moving forward, it's reasonable to expect they were looking forward so should have been able to see what was in front of them.
  
  The person exiting the car was in a worse position because Mario Kart was approaching them from behind, making them harder to identify unless the driver could see around corners into whatever road Mario was previously on.
  
  Sure, you can't open your door into oncoming traffic, but you can open your door if there's no traffic there and this scenario makes the most sense because the lady had time to open her door, exit the car and stand on the road before seeing Mario approaching.
  
  Even after she saw Mario approaching, she took evasive actions but apparently Mario still failed to see her and drove right on into her anyway.
  
  Sure, it does seem like there is very little evidence, but the law does have room to consider common sense. I doubt the insurers will change positions, but I do think there is an extremely persuasive argument to be made if you wanted to seek (expensive) legal recourse.
  
  "fleeing scene of accident" is a pointless defensive argument. The only thing it proves is they left the scene. It doesn't prove fault or admission of guilt for this accident.
  
  Maybe they had a severed body in the boot, a bag of untraceable $100 notes on the backseat, a sawn off shotgun under their seat or a trafficable amount of meth and a few pipes in the glove box.
- Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:39
  
  otherwise we are also saying drivers should never get out of their cars from the driver's side door when parked on the side of a road (which is absurd).
  
  No, they're not saying that.
  
  They are specifically saying they can't alight if:
  
  CAUSING A HAZARD by:
  a) opening a door
  b) leaving a door of a vehicle open
  c) off/out of a vehicle.
  
  They can exit the vehicle at any time they like, as long as they don't do those three things.
  
  By the OP's own admission, they left the car door open.
  
  Sure, the car probably was parked legally, but OP's description suggests they didn't exit the car legally.
  
  If it is legal to park there then implicitly the people who decide where no-parking zones are (either the council's Local Traffic Committee or RMS for State roads) think it is safe to park a car and to get out of the car without causing a hazard.
  
  Your conclusion to this part is just nuts!
  
  True, the parking designers must think that there are some times when drivers of parked cars can exit safely, but they don't specify that it will always be safe or even when it might be safe. They just allow you to park there with the caveat of "you can exit when it is safe to do so".
  
  If the other driver was not at fault why would she flee from the scene of the accident without providing her details and seemingly only providing a fake phone number?
  
  What makes you think other driver did this?
  
  They stopped and engaged with in a conversation with the OP, and apparently exchanged some details.
  
  Just because other car isn't answering their phone doesn't mean it is a fake number.
  
  I agree that they should have provided license details, perhaps neither party knew about this (or why didn't OP ask for these details?) but moot point now because obviously both drivers have lodged claims with their respective insurers who are aware of each party's details by default.
  
  Now that insurers are involved, OP only needs to deal with their insurer. They have no legal right to be in contact with the other vehicle. This is one of the main reasons why they have insurance - so they deal with this stuff on your behalf.
  
  If OP's insurance thought there was a chance they didn't need to pay out, they would challenge the other party's findings. Not just roll over, agree with their findings and agree to pay out money they're not obligated to.
Protractor on 17/05/2025 - 10:04

+4

I hear there's a special on the 'DEALS page.
The Doors Greatest Hits (1 day only)
- Issun on 17/05/2025 - 10:06
  
  🤣
  - Protractor on 17/05/2025 - 10:14
    
    +2
    
    Today is World Coincidence Day
    
    This forum topic is not published.
    Accident with a Parked Car Door – Now They're Harassing Me for Money (Trolling)
bargaino on 17/05/2025 - 10:47

+2

FWIW, I had a similar case with 3rd party. My insurer was willing to roll over and pay the other party who hit me, but I persuaded them to challenge it and the other party dropped the case. That was RAC WA. (The ones who just sold out :-( )

It wasn't worth my time & stress to make a counter claim, but sound like you need to claim against RACT.
Why are you trying to contact the other driver if you already have her insurance details? There is no point.
First thing is to maker phone contact with your own insurer and convince them. Use the above posted images.

If your partner was parked legally, and the other car came around the corner, I would have thought you have a strong case. Never mind what the other driver said.
But FYI folks, a dashcam that records audio can be very useful in a case like this. And a 'record button' on your phone, if you remember to hit it. One time I recorded the other driver asking me to fraudulently change the time on my claim, which would have been useful if he'd changed his mind about admitting responsibility.
FlyingMiffy on 17/05/2025 - 10:57

+1

100% of the time opening car doors will be the one at fault. Just ask the cyclists ;)
- smartazz104 on 17/05/2025 - 11:20
  
  +1
  
  Yeah like how it's always 100% the fault of the driver hitting the car in front right of them…
  - Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:42
    
    In your scenario, both cars are within their designated areas.
    
    In flyingMiffy's scenario, I doubt they were implying the cyclist was in the designated area of the car opening their car door.
smartazz104 on 17/05/2025 - 11:21

+1

I find it interesting the other driver wasn't able to navigate around OP's car given how much space there is from where they turned to where the car is.
- Kremleen on 17/05/2025 - 11:23
  
  It could be a small road with cars parked on both sides. I could imagine a small residential road like that with narrow two-way road that can only fit one car at a time
  - smartazz104 on 17/05/2025 - 11:24
    
    +1
    
    Doesn't look that small in OP's picture.
    - CaptainJack on 17/05/2025 - 13:07
      
      Looks like it's reasonably busy. So may have been oncoming traffic.

Driver Almost Takes Our Car Door off - Says We're at Fault and Won't Answer Calls

Comments

New Forum Topics