Who is at fault?

tberry6686

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Are you sure?

Another member has been flamed when his passenger opened the door after claiming the moving vehicle was at fault.

Totally different thing. The other posters door was opened into the side of a moving car meaning the car was alongside when the door was opened. In this case the door hit the bumper indicating that the door was open before the op's car hit it so the op should have seen it and stopped.

nicholaswitchell

jojonana wrote: »

Thank you everyone for your answers ... looks like I will have a bad mark on my insurance. This is the first accident I have had in 25 years of driving.

To be honest then, I'd look at it like this: 1 accident in 25 years is damn good going, and you should be proud. Also, the accident that has happened has caused no one any injuries, the only damage is to the cars, and those can be repaired or replaced as necessary.

Just two lumps of metal, who cares.

Seriously

Oldfatgrumpy

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

No, sorry, he doesn't actually have to. It is your responsibility as driver of a moving vehicle to avoid hitting stationary objects, even if it "changes shape" in some way.

That's worth remembering if I one day accidentally "door" a cyclist.

Generali

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

No, sorry, he doesn't actually have to. It is your responsibility as driver of a moving vehicle to avoid hitting stationary objects, even if it "changes shape" in some way.

Please excuse my bluntness but do you have any expertise here or are you [STRIKE]making it up[/STRIKE] using 'common sense'?

robatwork

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

Yes, any collision with a stationary object is the fault of whoever was in control of the moving vehicle, sorry. Even if he whipped the door open quickly in the hopes you'd hit it, you're still at fault. You were following him in, you must have been able to see that he'd parked awkwardly as he slowed down.

Just wrong.

If he is stationary then correct. But his door was moving.

All depends on if this was "door to car" or "car to door". Or probably 50/50. OP didn't give good enough description of the incident to say for sure.

DUTR

robatwork wrote: »

Just wrong.

If he is stationary then correct. But his door was moving.

All depends on if this was "door to car" or "car to door". Or probably 50/50. OP didn't give good enough description of the incident to say for sure.

From the original post it does sound car to door, and obviously the description will be baised to the OP , the other party may have a different summary of the event.
The train station one is clear cut the door opened onto a passing car.

neilmcl

jojonana wrote: »

Doesn't the other driver have any liability because he obviously did not check to see if anything was behind him before opening his door?

As you initial post suggests you were concentrating on the pumps to the side of you rather than looking in the direction you were travelling in. Had you been doing so you probably would have seen the door. Rule of thumb, if you're moving forward, look forward, reversing look backwards. It really is as easy as that.

The fault is yours I'm afraid.

uknick

neilmcl wrote: »

....Rule of thumb, if you're moving forward, look forward, reversing look backwards. It really is as easy as that.....

Not to some it seems

trailingspouse

Fault of the moving vehicle. If I was pursuing the claim on your behalf, I would have a stab at a 75/25 settlement, but wouldn't hold out much hope.

I remember dealing with a claim where someone had parked on a roundabout, and my client had hit them. I was told in no uncertain terms that just because something is in the wrong place you don't have the right to hit it.

almillar

For a bit of clarity OP - you say your 'car bumper' - it's important here whether it was the front (you hit him) or the side (MAYBE he hit you) of your car - can you answer?