| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: Who is at fault? I was hit, but my fault by technicality??? |
|
|
Who is liable in this case?
Both in error. She hit me, but insurance wants out on a technicality.
What happened:
I pulled into a side street to enter a parking lot. There were two entrances one directly on the corner and one roughly 2-3 car lengths down. I took the 2nd entrance. It turns out that it was one-way, but was not well marked. I did not know until i had entered the lot.
I pulled in slowly, only as far in as, maybe 2 car lengths. I realized it was one way, so I was planning to simply back into a spot on my right.
This is when the incident occurred. I was stopped and a woman in one of the parking spots to my left, backed out, without even looking, right into my drivers side door. It hit right where my door meets the body of my car (2 door honda) Her car was fine. Mine was not. It should be roughly 800-1000 in damages as it is a new car.
This was my first accident. She admitted liability at the scene, but there was no witness. We exchanged info and i called my insurance right away. I took a picture and emailed it to her that night. It was private property so no police.
At first her insurance said they would take care of it. Now, her insurance is saying it is entirely my fault b/c of one-way parking lot, but she hit me!
I did enter the wrong way, but i was not moving and had she looked in her rear view, i was directly behind her. She would have hit me regardless of the direction i was facing at the time.
What rules/laws/regulations can i cite or find to say who is at fault? Even if it says I am. I just want to know. I agree that i was indeed in error as far as traffic laws...
However, as for the actual accident, it had nothing to do with what way i was going. She had a clear view of me, and a clear view of the street i came from, it was a very open parking lot, and it wouldn't have mattered what way i was heading. She simply did not look behind her and backed up.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
ANGELKISS6963
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure how this will work out for you but you came to the right place for answer. There are really smart people and one will be along shortly. On my view your probaly going to be at fault. It reminds me of being behind someone and for no apparent reason they slam on their brakes and boom. Your suppose to be "in control" at all times. So I imagine if you weren't following the parking lot signs or rules it will be much of the same thing. I'll check back I'd like to see how this works myself. Good Luck. |
|
fireyone
Senior member
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1988
0.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As you describe it, I would say the other person is 95%-100% at fault. I tend to agree with your view and would ask the adjuster how you _facing_ the wrong direction changes anything. It's clear that you entering the wrong way had nothing to do with the accident as you had already entered and stopped. In that you vehicle is _pointing_ the opposite direction does not change that the other person has the responsiblity to make sure the area behind her is clear before backing up into the isle way. You were in the isle way so you have the right of way. Also, the other part had the last clear chance to avoid, given the point of impact to her rear bumper against your side door.
Is the other person's statement the same or did she perhaps tell the adjuster that you were driving down the isle way?
You may want to speak to a supervisor at the other carrier to find out their perspective of the accident. I'd certain point out that you were stopped at the time of the impact, that the point of impact to your car was the _side_ door and mention that the other person had the duty to make sure the area behind her vehicle was clear and you had no chance to avoid. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 3199
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
335.28 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most parking lots have an "Entrance" and an "Exit". One way in and one way out.
There was an illegal turn made here. It would be kind of like getting on South I-95 driving North and someone slams into you.
Whose fault would the accident be? |
|
InsuranceMaze
Community Contributor
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 589
21.87 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of parking lots are poorly signed and marked because it is private property, owned by the company. still, how hard is it to look in the rearview mirror?
So, it is completely ok to ram into someone if they are facing the wrong direction? i think i want a new paint job... ill go hang out in a mall parking lot and wait. as long as i pretend its an accident I'm fine?
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Supercharger
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with tcope on this one...only I might try and hit you for 20-25% just on principle...the vast majority of the negligence goes to the ''backer''....find your local ''rules of the road'' there will be a part in there that says something along the lines of ''the party backing must use a higher degree of care''....also were I you I'd use the argument of , "what if it were a kid? or a person pushing a cart to their car? Would they also need to be going the correct direction?" of course not! The driver did not make sure that she could back safely...period....I'd fight this one! Also before time flys go to the lot and take pictures of the markings etc....showing the lanes of traffic flow, are they on the ground or up high on signs? If on the ground, most courts have found them the same as non-exsistant...the signs must be at eye level....also based on the point of impact you had more than half of your car past her! Another point in your favor...good luck and do let us know....
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7541
Location: Missouri
172.15 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Lori and tcope.
| Quote: | | I'm with tcope on this one...only I might try and hit you for 20-25% just on principle...the vast majority of the negligence goes to the ''backer''....find your local ''rules of the road'' there will be a part in there that says something along the lines of ''the party backing must use a higher degree of care'' |
| Quote: | | Also, the other party had the last clear chance to avoid, given the point of impact to her rear bumper against your side door. |
tcope-- you think the doctrine of last clear chance would apply here? Just curious, not saying you're wrong, but interested in your ideas.
If the OP would be so kind, it would help to know what state you live in. Different states have different laws on negligence, and we may be able to give you a little more help if you let us know.
What I do know is that in certain states, if you break a traffic law and then get into an accident, that can prevent you from collecting damages from the other party. That applies even if the other party was terminally stupid, like it sounds in this case. On the other hand, certain other states only enforce statute for certain violations, say if you were cited for eluding police, wreckless driving, driving in commission of a crime, etc... really egregious stuff. There are a myriad of different laws depending on where you live.
Give us more info, and we can help you more! Tell us about your coverage, that will help, too. Let's get the terminally stupid driver! 
I just can't stand people who get into stupid accidents because they simply didn't look before they actually drove. Like this person! 
InsTeacher 
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
HEY!!! That last one was MINE and since it SAID I was logged in and actually WASN'T, I'm taking credit for another post!
InsTeacher |
|
InsTeacher
Moderator
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 896
Location: Oregon, USA
41.23 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh no! we're not having the log in trouble again are we? crap, I'll send a pm to lakemen!
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7541
Location: Missouri
172.15 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would this not be settled under some state Comparative Negligence Law?
This is part of one state law, can't remember which state:
| Quote: | | Some terms you may come across when discussing negligence issues with the insurance company are: proximate cause of the collision, meaning the primary reason the accident occurred such as a driver not stopping at a stop sign; greater duty of care, such as a person pulling out of a stop sign having the responsibility to be certain no cars are coming before pulling out; last clear chance to avoid the collision, meaning the person who could have done something to avoid the accident occurring and evasive action, meaning the actions a driver can take to avoid the accident. |
Seems to me that the "proximate cause of the collision" was the driver that turned into a one-way drive going the wrong way. Had the driver entered the parking lot through the "Entrance" instead of the "Exit", this accident more than likely would never have happened.
I'm sure attorneys could fight either way. |
|
InsuranceMaze
Community Contributor
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 589
21.87 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, Maze all states have their own negligence laws, my state (MO) for example is ''pure'' comparative meaning any percentage is paid....10% at fault you collect 90% and visa versa, some states have modified, some are no fault and no fault with 51% rule, that one means if you are more than 49% at fault you are barred from ANY recovery...so we really need to know the state the OP is in....
I suppose the argument could be made that the backer only looked in the direction that traffic was ''supposed'' to be coming from, however, she has a duty to make sure the roadway is safe to enter...ie a pedestrian for example....will be interesting, to see the outcome...in my years adjusting the 'backer' as opposed to the vehicle stopped or going in a forward movement generally will bare the larger percentage of negligence.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 7541
Location: Missouri
172.15 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I, too, think this could be very interesting in the outcome.
But, I think we are not taking into consideration the fact that this driver was where she wasn't supposed to be.
Do "one-way" traffic laws apply to driveways on private property?
Was this private property or owned by the city? |
|
InsuranceMaze
Community Contributor
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 589
21.87 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: Who is at fault? I was hit, but my fault by technicality??? |
|
|
In my non-legal personal opinion (we all have em)
In this Thread there is a lot of Co-mingling of Department of Transportation rules & regulation and Private Property rights & responsibilities.
One would think, by the OP's comments, this accident was clearly in the parking lot. Which one would think should throw out any DOT rules & regulations. Making it an "Tort" action. Usually in tort "reasonable" is the key factor.
Is it reasonable for a driver to back into a stopped Car and not be responsible for any damage caused?
Is it reasonable for a driver to back into a Person and not be responsible for any damage caused?
Is it reasonable for a driver to back into a No Parking sign and not be responsible for any damage caused?
Is it reasonable for a driver to back into a building and not be responsible for any damage caused?
If I put a "One Way" sign in my driveway could a Law Enforcement Officer Fine you for backing out of my driveway?
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 262
Location: Pa.
35.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good question FK but I'm sure these people will be able to give the best advice possible. That is what they are here for. |
|
fireyone
Senior member
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1988
0.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FYI, I live in central California
i talked to my insurance agent today and sent her a statement that i wrote up of facts and liability. The lot was poorly designed, and had no markings as to the enterance or exit, and i had only pulled in as far as first two parking spots. Which unfortunatly the person who hit me was in. I do not know what i could have done better in this situation. The only way to tell it was a one way was to really enter the lot. Also, she had a much clearer view of me as there were no cars to her left. And not to metion i was practically stopped behind her when she hit me. Ive been scouring the internet for ideas and support of my position and from everything that ive found I really do not believe that I casued this accident in any way. She was clearly not paying attention. And like Lori said, What if it had been a child behind her walking the wrong direction, or a bicycle? I think, everything else aside it is her duty to assure a clear and unobstructed path behind her. She failed to do so, and that caused the accident. I was just suprised that she admitted to it being her fault... and it seems everything is taken care of until out of the blue someone changes their mind.
So i guess we will see... its the job of each insuarance agency to get the best deal for their client so i can see why they would try and use that against me. Its the only thing they've got. I think the best thing to do is write out a very detailed statement, provide support, lots of pictures (google maps/ satalite pictures do wonders) and see how it pans out.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
angelkiss6963
Guest
|
|
