car crash on ice!

botbot21

in the bad weather recently a car that had just been parked on an hill on ice! slid into my car and caused damage. the driver was on the pavement watching and screaming!! i was stationary stuck in traffic, the other persons insurance is saying this needs to be split 50/50?
i don't think this is fair, im going to dispute this but just want to see if anyone else has had this happen in the recent bad weather and what the out come has been?
Surely if you park your car (A) inappropriately and its on a hill, then roles into another car (B) thats on the road, it is car (A) that has caused damage to car (B) therefore should be 100% claim on car (A) insurance???

Kurtis_Blue

Sounds nonsense as you could not avoid, but of cause they are going to suggest it.

More importantly I am going to copyright "Celebrity car crash on ice" its going to be the next big thing.

shark_DB

has the other driver suggested that your car was moving at the time?

diable

Ball Cocks did the car crash in to the back of yours as usually that is a 100% fault of the car behind you, what 50% do they believe that you are liable for, reversing up the hill on ice into the car sliding down the hill?

thescouselander

Nonsense - if you were stationary how can you be responsible - I think they are trying it on - tell them to get stuffed!

McKneff

Leave it to your insurance company, thats what you pay them for.
They arent stupid and will fight your corner for you.

Let them get on with it and stop worrying.
Its a no brainer.

Ian_W

Not sure the other posters are correct. If the case went to court it wouldn't be enough to show you weren't to blame - you would have to prove that the other party was, in law, negligent.

Don't get me wrong, in your shoes I'd be thinking the same way - I'm not at fault so the other party should pay.

You say they were parked "inappropriately" - why was it? Was it foreseeable to someone exercising reasonable care that a car parked with it's handbrake on and stationary on that hill would start to slide on ice of it's volition? That might be the difficult bit given the vehicle obviously had sufficient traction to go up or come down the hill and was able to come to a complete stop for the driver to get out.

Were there other vehicles parked on the hill at the time that didn't slide? Or that did?

Hope I'm wrong but there is a bit more to it than I'm not in the wrong so the other party must be. Hope it works out for you.

Kurtis_Blue

Ian_W wrote: »

Was it foreseeable to someone exercising reasonable care that a car parked with it's handbrake on and stationary on that hill would start to slide on ice of it's volition?

Yes.............

Ian_W

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Yes.............

Well, if you were there as an independent witness be a good boy and give the OP your details and s/he should be home and dry!

Kurtis_Blue

Ian_W wrote: »

Well, if you were there as an independent witness be a good boy and give the OP your details and s/he should be home and dry!

Why do I need to see the ice to know its friction coefficient?

DirectDebacle

botbot21 wrote: »

in the bad weather recently a car that had just been parked on an hill on ice! slid into my car and caused damage. the driver was on the pavement watching and screaming!! i was stationary stuck in traffic, the other persons insurance is saying this needs to be split 50/50?
i don't think this is fair, im going to dispute this but just want to see if anyone else has had this happen in the recent bad weather and what the out come has been?
Surely if you park your car (A) inappropriately and its on a hill, then roles into another car (B) thats on the road, it is car (A) that has caused damage to car (B) therefore should be 100% claim on car (A) insurance???

If the description of the incident you gave to your insurers is as lacking in detail as the one above I am not surprised the other party is going 50/50.

Much more information is required to show the other driver had parked inappropriately.

I understand your annoyance but remember insurers are usually much more interested in saving money and increasing profits than they are in fairness.

I agree with Ian W at the moment.