Woman put her shopping behind my car and I crushed it by accident

arcon5

However, I remember reading examples where a child lay down their bike etc behind a car parked on the drive and it was reversed over. The driver was found responsible as apparently you are obligated to check around your car before getting in to check it safe to reverse out.

I suppose the difference here being a pavement is for pedestrians and when exiting the drive way you are crossing this. With op she's reversing out of a parking space where it's not reasonable to expect shopping behind your vehicle - a child would be easier to notice and a few seconds glance would likely have them appear in one of the mirrors as they move past the car.


But she surely didn't appear from nowhere? Perhaps in the car next to op? (if not, then the mind boggles) so I could understand why op should have been more alert of the possibilities.

Retrogamer

Strictly speaking, you're under no legal obligation to provide your insurance details to her. You know need to provide these details (legally) when someone is injured in a road traffic accident.

It is an offense though, not to supply your name and address.
if you done this, the woman can then try and sue you for costs and losses and at that stage, it's up to you if you want to pass that liability claim to your insurance.

If it was me, i'd have paid her myself and said sorry.

Aretnap

Mark_Mark wrote: »

If there has been a collision, then no nip is required. The OP has no defence for failing to stop as he was aware it happened.

He would in all probability get a NIP anyway, in spite of it not strictly being required. However he would have a defence to failure to stop as it doesn't meet the definition of a reportable accident - a bag of shopping being neither a mechanically propelled vehicle, an animal nor "property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land".

londonTiger

I didn;'t check what was in her shopping lots of cans, some groceries and I distinctively remember ketchup lol.

I got in the car 5 minutes ago after doing my shop, and had the engine running and AC going to clear up the condesnation on the windows. I was talking on the phone in the meantime so wasn't really all to concerned about what was going around me.

Then i finished my call, put on the hazards and reversed out as normal and went over something and then I stopped. She was on the phone too so she put all her shopping in and mustive forgotton that paticular bag.

I think she was bluffing because she wanted me to crap my pants about increased premiums and give her £20 to replace the grocerries. I was having none of it.

She's lucky it wasn't a bigger object that could scratch and damage my car. Because I would be looking at claiming on her insurance for creating a danger for me.

Hintza

londonTiger wrote: »

Then i finished my call, put on the hazards and reversed out

Why the heck do you reverse with your hazards on?

Mark_Mark

Aretnap wrote: »

He would in all probability get a NIP anyway, in spite of it not strictly being required. However he would have a defence to failure to stop as it doesn't meet the definition of a reportable accident - a bag of shopping being neither a mechanically propelled vehicle, an animal nor "property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land".

He'd get a notice under 172 but nothing will come of it as it never happened.

neilmcl

londonTiger wrote: »

I didn;'t check what was in her shopping lots of cans, some groceries and I distinctively remember ketchup lol.

I got in the car 5 minutes ago after doing my shop, and had the engine running and AC going to clear up the condesnation on the windows. I was talking on the phone in the meantime so wasn't really all to concerned about what was going around me.

Then i finished my call, put on the hazards and reversed out as normal and went over something and then I stopped. She was on the phone too so she put all her shopping in and mustive forgotton that paticular bag.

I think she was bluffing because she wanted me to crap my pants about increased premiums and give her £20 to replace the grocerries. I was having none of it.

She's lucky it wasn't a bigger object that could scratch and damage my car. Because I would be looking at claiming on her insurance for creating a danger for me.

So breaking the law on at least two accounts then.

Netwizard

Hintza wrote: »

Why the heck do you reverse with your hazards on?

I sometimes do that too, depending where I am, but only because my reversing lights refuse to work!!

neilmcl

Netwizard wrote: »

I sometimes do that too, depending where I am, but only because my reversing lights refuse to work!!

And you really expect other road users or pedestrians to know what you're doing, unbelievable!

londonTiger

i always put my hazards on when i do an unconventional manouvre. u turns, or just if you're paralell parking in a very tight residential road. Some idiots drive so close behind and just indicating left isn't enough they'll keep a short gap and the driver behind them also keeps a short gap and there's no space for you to reverse in.

Hazards tends to send the message home.