[Car Accident] Who's Technically at Fault? Collision with Car Exiting Dealership Driveway

Hi everyone,

Hoping for some insight from the OzB legal minds and armchair insurers out there.

I was involved in a collision earlier this week. I was driving along a suburban road with Black Kid's "Hurricane Jane" playing on the stereo — definitely not speeding, although I was making good time (some might call it “spirited” driving, but still legal). Conditions were light rain and traffic was light.

As I approached a car dealership, a vehicle exited their driveway — fairly abruptly — and I struck the rear driver’s side of their car. There were two women in the vehicle. From what I understand, they aren’t denying responsibility, which is… refreshing.

That said, my car has been written off. Meanwhile, theirs seems to have walked away with panel damage and two shaken passengers.

Now I know the golden rule is that cars entering from private property must give way to all traffic, but I’m curious:

Does it still count as their fault if I hit their rear quarter panel?

Could my “enthusiastic” approach speed be used against me, even though it was under the posted limit (allegedly)?

Should I be concerned that her insurer hasn’t denied fault, but mine still sounds suspiciously quiet?

Not looking to argue — just trying to get a sense of whether this is a slam dunk or if I’m about to be politely blamed by my own insurance for “contributing factors.”

Thanks in advance.

Have provided one better than the usual MS Paint diagram:
https://imgur.com/a/fw6sQg9

Comments

  • +13

    Was their car brand new?? If so.. damn that would suck

  • +7

    Not your fault 100%

  • +7

    Dashcam?

    • +2

      It's always the dashcam cars fault.

  • +2

    Sounds pretty open and shut - fault on their side.

    The only catch I can think of is if your “spirited driving” involved changing lanes or pulling on to the road directly before impact - but even then, I think it would be shared responsibility

    • +1

      Totally agree - unless they can prove that you did something wrong, it's 100% on the other car for failing to give way.

      Anyone entering the road from a private property is required to give way to all traffic. Giving way means they shouldn't even cause you to have to slow down or swerve. The fact that you hit them at all is pretty strong evidence they didn't properly give way.

      The only way this could be considered partly your fault is if you weren't driving in a legal manner - in this case, if you were speeding, or weren't in your lane, or didn't have your lights on when they were required etc.

  • +2

    Who's Technically at Fault?

    As per the laws of physics?

  • Dashcam needed to prove you weren't speeding

    • -2

      Does the speed make a difference?

      • +7

        Yes, because you could've stopped in time to not have the accident. If you were doing 100 in a 60 zone, you might've been able to stop if you were actually doing 60.

      • +3

        Yeah it does, roads are designed around (well should be designed around) the speed limits.

        One of the main things is sight distances, if I look right and I don't see a car I should be able to pull out and get up to speed without someone running into the back of me.

        However is said person is driving enthusiastically in their high yield investment mobile it is very possible that is no longer the case….

        Not sure how the law would work (not a lawyer) but that's how road design works anyway :P

      • +1

        I would think based on the amount of damage to the other car, they could determine if you were speeding or not (not like 65 in a 60)

    • +7

      Why must he prove he was not speeding? They must prove he was.
      100% not op's fault.

      • +1

        Just like @Witchdoctr said

        One of the main things is sight distances, if I look right and I don't see a car I should be able to pull out and get up to speed without someone running into the back of me.

        So if he was speeding, he could've "appeared out of no where" when the other vehicle thought it was all clear.

      • +6

        Because if he was speeding he was breaking the law. If he was breaking the law, he might be (partially or fully in the opinion of the insurers) at fault for the accident.

  • +7

    Assuming you were obeying other road rules, not drink driving, speeding above the posted limit, driving recklessly or erratically then it sounds like they are at fault.
    If you slid round the corner ten metres up from them at 59km/h laying a rubber fishtail just before the accident you might not be travelling over the speed limit, but your "spirited" driving is likely to mean you were being reckless.

  • Have provided one better than the usual MS Paint diagram: https://imgur.com/a/fw6sQg9

    Based on this, they could have not seen you if there was other vehicles parked on the side but speed could also be a factor. The road is probably speed posted to factor in cars on the shoulder. If you were doing 80 and a 60 zone for example, then you could've "appear out of no where" very quickly. If you were doing the speed limit, you should've been able to slow down and/or change lanes to avoid the accident.

    Have you got a google map pin drop for a street view look?

  • Really depends on the exact circumstances but the answer is yes you are at fault If they can prove they cleared the drive way and you didn't keep distance despite seeing them.

    How do I know? I've gone through court and I won 100%.

    Yes speed matters. Lawyers will ask.

    • It's be a bitch if they were watching on ,here,eh?

      • Dunno, insurance motor lawyers aren't exactly the brightest but they go through so much trash a day. I don't expect them to devote time to even Google.

  • +10

    For someone 'not' speeding you sound a lot like you were. Now that might come back to bite you on your ass, if there is some evidence to support that and insurance wants an out, or the other party's insurance wants an in.

  • If you had a dashcam, this would be an open-and-shut case.

    • +1

      Ditto if the car behind OP had one.Maybe a whole different outcome,though.

  • +1

    Hi,
    I had a look @

    https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7344827,150.9810837,3a,75y,…

    Is that the entry / collision point?
    (First driveway past "Big Ass Red Nissan" sign)

    If so, that is a considerable slope the Vehicle entering the Victoria Avenue is driving down, you could wonder if they even stopped to look at oncoming traffic.

    Your speed limit there is signposted at 50km/h, so what speed do you say you were doing…

    • +4

      You speed limit there is signposted at 50km/h, so what speed do you say you were doing…

      Not only is it sign-posted, but a little further up the road, it is even line-marked on the road!

      At 50km/h, the OP should've been able to stop or at least slow down enough not to write their car off! I was expecting the road to be a 60km/h.

      • +1

        Yeah, there are two sign-postings either side of Victoria Avenue and one way back further.

        All were 50km/h on a stretch that appears slightly downhill.

        • Next the OP will blame their speeding on the downhill.

  • +1

    Not your fault.

    It is surprising you couldn't stop in time though, how close were they to you when they pulled out?

    • Far, or otherwise blind.

      Hitting the front - okay, t-boning - still okay, hitting the back - questionable.

  • Not at fault would be my take on the situation.

    Even if the car pulling out didn't see you, they still had the responsibility to make sure they can pull out safely. From the google map image it looks as though their view was obstructed by parked cars.

  • +1

    You weren't driving to the conditions,either. And pushing your luck, re the speed.

  • +2

    I'm not sure what point there is giving the OP an answer.

    No-one starting a "was it my fault" thread here ever comes back and gives us any feedback as to what the insurance company decided. And doubly so when it was their fault.

    But for the record, this is a scenario that is often the one in crashes of motorcycles into cars. The car driver looks one way, then the other, and pulls out. Only to have the motorcycle crash into them, because it was small, so they didn't get a good idea of its speed, or notice it at all, and it accelerated faster. And it was likely exceeding the speed limit because, well, motorcyclists do, a lot. If there's clear evidence that motorcycle was speeding, like independent witnesses or CCTV that is taken into consideration in considering fault. Otherwise its the car driver's fault.

    Oh, and you can't drive spiritedly and still stay under a 50 limit. So you're admitting you were speeding. Be careful who you admit that to.

    • Maybe OP isn't a very capable throttle controller?

      • That's probably a fairly accurate assessment of the cause of the crash. That plus another driver who didn't look.

  • Well. If anything, it will be whether the car has entered, or entering.

    Should their front been damaged, definitely entering.

    Their backside got hit, anyone with a bit of common sense would have argued to have entered.

    The weather is not to be blamed, should drive to condition.

    I can imagine the car exiting floor the accelerator, otherwise you would have seen it from 3 seconds ahead. On the phone?

    Spirited driving, maybe try to be less spirited next time.

    May the spirit be with you.

  • -3

    We don't need to know what you were listening to.

    We don't need to know about spirited speed and enthusiastic approach.

    You weren't speeding. You had right of way.

    • +2

      You had right of way.

      @pegaxs - it's been a while since this phrase was used but try keeping your shit together please.

      • +3

        *Head assploding noise.wav*

        2nd trip this year to ER for an aneurysm… Gonna get some frequent flyer points at this rate… I just go to the ER now and the triage nurse looks at me and says; "right of way again?" and I just nod and they wave me through…

        • +1

          I just spat out my cereal*

          *Yes. A great afternoon snack is a second round of breakfast. YMMV.

  • +1

    Spirited - speeding and erratic lane changes?

    • Takumi style.

    • Fish tailing in the wet.

    • +2

      They've said it was victoria ave so anyone who knows the area knows that's how most people drive. OP was likely speeding, other driver saw a clear lane and pulled out, OP, changed into the previously free lane to pass a slower car and boom, "accident".

  • +3

    I can't see how you write off a Car doing 50km/h if you allow 35m from when you see the other vehicle and some delay for reaction, your speed would be falling if you threw the anchors on… ~50m to a complete stop?

    • +3

      I think spirited means speeding. But lucky for the OP it'd be very hard to prove.

      • +5

        I thought spirited meant steering with yer right hand and a bottle of Jack Daniel's in your left.

        • I thought spirited means driving with the spirit only and hands off.

  • Jebus H. Cripes, I leave this site alone for 5 mins and there are TWO "I had a crash" threads?? WTF is in the water today?

    They are at fault. If you are leaving a "road related area", you must give way to any approaching traffic…

    And WTF is all the "spirited drivering" malarkey you are carrying on about? You were either driving within the road rules framework, or you were driving like a (fropanity), pick a lane.

  • A picture tells a thousand words but a dash cam gives you the whole story. I've had a front dash cam for years and now trying to figure out how I can install a rear one too

    • I've had a front dash cam for years and now trying to figure out how I can install a rear one too

      Get a new unit that has both and its just 1 cable from Front to Rear. I've just fitted a VIOFO A229 Plus 2k with rear cam and very happy so far. I needed to buy an little extension for the rear camera as I have a ute and it was about 1m too short to get to the canopy.

    • +1

      Just buy another single camera VIOFO with GPS or similar and install it as rear dashcam. Can be simpler and cheaper than a new dashcam with a front and rear camera due to possible challenges of installing video cable from front dashcam to rear camera, depending on vehicle of course.

  • Looks like OP is having some deep thoughts. Care to share please? We are here to help.

Login or Join to leave a comment