Reversing Liability

curlydog

I had a very minor accident a couple of months ago and I have been very disappointed by the attitude of my insurance company.

I was in a one way system within the grounds of a school. Essentially it is a semi circle for dropping off and picking up kids. Having realised I was in a spot that was needed by a coach, I began to reverse, immediately as I came to a halt.

I checked both side mirrors and interior mirror to make sure there was nothing behind me, before I started to reverse. Unseen to me a car drove across the rear of my vehicle from a side road on my nearside.

Upon seeing the vehicle behind me I braked, but still had a minor impact wit the other car. Right from the beginning My insurers have said I was liable, based solely on the fact that I was reversing, telling me that a court would find in the others favour because there is a greater onus on me because I was reversing.

My argument is that I did all that I could in order to make sure it was safe to reverse. There was nothing behind me when I started the maneuver and on seeing the other vehicle pull out behind me I reacted immediately, but was unable to avoid them.

I would suggest because it was a one way system, the other drive has been looking to their right to see that it was clear to proceed. Once I passed across the front of them, they have pulled out without checking that it was clear in front of them. If they had they would have seen my reversing lights and me moving backwards.

Is this a common stance to take by insurers? The fact that you are reversing automatically puts you at fault. My instincts tall me that a court would look at all of the circumstances, but my insurers are positive I will be found at fault and want to settle with me admitting full liability. I feel shared liability would be more appropriate.

InsideInsurance

It is not automatically your fault if you are reversing but you do have a heightened duty of care because you are performing a maneuver.

Where is the impact damage to the other vehicle?

Presumably the side road from which the other vehicle emerged does have road signs or markings to confirm its a giveway?

colino

It is automatically your fault because you weren't looking in the direction you were travelling. You really don't think you have an arguable case do you?

InsideInsurance

colino wrote: »

It is automatically your fault because you weren't looking in the direction you were travelling. You really don't think you have an arguable case do you?

But presumably the TP emerged from a side road, they potentially failed to give way

Retrogamer

curlydog wrote: »

I checked both side mirrors and interior mirror to make sure there was nothing behind me, before I started to reverse.

curlydog wrote: »

There was nothing behind me when I started the maneuver.

curlydog wrote: »

My argument is that I did all that I could in order to make sure it was safe to reverse. There was nothing behind me when I started the maneuver and on seeing the other vehicle pull out behind me I reacted immediately, but was unable to avoid them.

The problem with the mirrors you can't see all 3 at once and they don't give as good vision as the rear side windows for objects approaching you

If you were to reverse like that in your driving test now, you would fail as far as i was told doing mines.
When i passed my driving test not too long ago, i was told when you drive forward you look out the front window and when you reverse you look out the rear window as it's much better visibility than the mirrors and easier to judge distances.

The longer the insurance tries to dispute these things the more it costs them. If it went to court, the chances are it would go against you. Your insurance company will be unwilling to take that chance and will pay out.

Sadly, the insurance company needs to protect itself as well as it's customers

curlydog

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It is not automatically your fault if you are reversing but you do have a heightened duty of care because you are performing a maneuver.

Where is the impact damage to the other vehicle?

Presumably the side road from which the other vehicle emerged does have road signs or markings to confirm its a giveway?

The damage was to my R/N/S bumper and to the other vehicles R/N/S wheel arch.

As I mentioned, there were no road markings as the incident occurred within the grounds of a school as such, as far as the road traffic act is concerned, I don't think it's classed as a road. For whatever reason this doesn't seem to be an issue for my insurers. They made their mind up at the first call that it was my fault. Theyhaven't even asked for the photos of the damage that I took, even though I've mentioned the fact that I have them several times in calls and letters.

InsideInsurance

curlydog wrote: »

The damage was to my R/N/S bumper and to the other vehicles R/N/S wheel arch.

As I mentioned, there were no road markings as the incident occurred within the grounds of a school as such, as far as the road traffic act is concerned, I don't think it's classed as a road. For whatever reason this doesn't seem to be an issue for my insurers. They made their mind up at the first call that it was my fault. They haven't even asked for the photos of the damage that I took, even though I've mentioned the fact that I have them several times in calls and letters.

Unless you only have RTO cover then if it is classed as a public highway or not makes no different to anything and certainly not liability.

The lack of roadmarkings potentially damages your case. If there is no priority and no requirement for them to give way then it would be 100% your fault on the grounds you were reversing.

If they definitely did come from a side road and thus you had priority then it would most likely end up being a 50/50 as you both had a heightened duty of care.

Subject to looking at Google Maps ariel view of the accident site if it was in my claims handling days I'd initially attempt a 50/50 settlement but ultimately set your expectations that there is a reasonable chance we'd lose the case.

Retrogamer

curlydog wrote: »

The damage was to my R/N/S bumper and to the other vehicles R/N/S wheel arch.

Further to my post above this is why your insurance will see you as liable. If you hit the other vehicle's wheel arch then with your rear bumper then you have drove into their car, rather than vice versa.

It sounds like you checked the mirrors and all clear before starting to reverse, then when you seen the car in the rear mirror tried to stop but it was too late.
This is why i turn round and look out the rear window every time.

scaredofdebt

You were reversing the wrong way down a one-way street?

force_ten

curlydog wrote: »

The damage was to my R/N/S bumper and to the other vehicles R/N/S wheel arch.

from that i take it that the damage to the other car was the rear near side wheel arch for this to happen the car must have been very nearly past you, so i would be in the you hit them camp, so it is you that your insurance that is liable for the cost of repair

spacey2012

scaredofdebt wrote: »

You were reversing the wrong way down a one-way street?

Yeah but they were still only going one way...backwards. :rotfl: