Who is liable?

Cornucopia

I think we've drained as much information as we possibly can from the OP's original scenario (and in some cases more than there actually is).

I appreciate that some people are working from insurance "principles" that have probably been handed down from man to boy over generations. However, that does not make them universally true, and certainly, as Strider suggests, it does not make them true now.

In truth, there are only two automatic blame factors: hitting someone from the rear, and hitting a stationary vehicle or object. And even those have valid exceptions (a vehicle in front that has "appeared" without warning from a turn or another lane).

As a principle, I think insurers should be aiming to tease out as much of the truth as they can afford to. I don't agree that blame is clear-cut in most accidents - they are freak occurrences, requiring a combination of factors, and potentially fault with both parties.

I don't accept (and wouldn't accept) liability solely as a consequence of reversing from a drive or parking space. Clearly excessive speed on the part of the other party can be a contributory factor to the causation and the severity of a collision, and as such it will be contributory negligence.

We've had this before on this forum, where some people believe that the right to overtake exists irrespective of the excessive speed of the overtaker, which is just plain wrong.

Similarly the "right" to collide with another object just because you have right of way, and irrespective of your excessive speed is also just plain wrong.

Hopefully none of the nay-sayers ever find themselves in a similar situation to the OP, and if they do, hopefully their plight will fall on more sympathetic ears than they have provided here.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

and if they do, hopefully their plight will fall on more sympathetic ears than they have provided here.

There is a gulf between sympathy and denial of reality.

Retrogamer

Here's something that happened to me.

I rolled into a car in front of me approaching a roundabout. My car suffered superficial damage.
Their car suffered no damage at all. I took lots of HD video as well as HD photos documenting the lack of any damage to their car. Not even a crease, scrape, scratch etc on the paint.

I informed my insurance for notification purposes and made it clear in the event of a claim i had evidence there was no damage.

The other person i hit was claiming £500 to respray their rear bumper and £1000 hire car charges. They went with a no win no fee solicitor.
Despite me having evidence it was a fraudulent claim due to the lack of damage, my insurance company paid out in full.

The reasoning is if they didn't pay out for the non existent damage it might turn into a personal injury claim as well. Thus they wanted it settled as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

My advice and input here is based on my experience, experience of others i know and have helped with insurance claims as well as years worth of reading on the Pepipoo forums (specialises in legal advise for motoring incidents) and Speed Plod Law of Pistonhead forums where owners of insurance companies, traffic officers and motoring lawyers visit and share their knowledge frequently.

Cornucopia

I've been trying to think of another angle on this, and came up with this...

In the scenario of reversing out of a parking space with adequate but limited visibility, what speed is too fast, on the part of a passing vehicle?

In our imaginary estate road, if the reverser's visibility extends to, say, 50m, which of these is too fast on the part of the other party:-

- 30mph, covering the distance in 3.7 seconds
- 40mph, covering the distance in 2.8 seconds
- 50mph, covering the distance in 2.2 seconds
- 60mph, covering the distance in 1.9 seconds
- 70mph, covering the distance in 1.6 seconds
- 80mph, covering the distance in 1.4 seconds

Strider590

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've been trying to think of another angle on this, and came up with this...

In the scenario of reversing out of a parking space with adequate but limited visibility, what speed is too fast, on the part of a passing vehicle?

In our imaginary estate road, if the reverser's visibility extends to, say, 50m, which of these is too fast on the part of the other party:-

- 30mph, covering the distance in 3.7 seconds
- 40mph, covering the distance in 2.8 seconds
- 50mph, covering the distance in 2.2 seconds
- 60mph, covering the distance in 1.9 seconds
- 70mph, covering the distance in 1.6 seconds
- 80mph, covering the distance in 1.4 seconds

There's driving too fast and there's having "Reich of way", that phenomenon whereby driving a BMW means everyone else should automatically moved out of the way, even if they're reversing out of a drive and partially obstructing the road already.

Retrogamer

What speed do cars become invisible?

I'm only asking as the OP said the road was clear yet hit a car. So if you are looking at the road correctly you'd normally see the car approaching for moment before you hit it.

As it appears the OP was only aware of the presence of the vehicle when she hit it, it's reasonable to say they weren't looking in the direction the car was coming from. If she did, she would have seen it approaching, even for a moment before driving into it.
This is being unobservent which accounts to negligence.

The other key part is the vehicle didn't drive sideways into the back of her car, she reversed her car into the side of the other car.
This is failing to give way to traffic already on the road.
This accounts to negligence.

Retrogamer

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've been trying to think of another angle on this, and came up with this...

In the scenario of reversing out of a parking space with adequate but limited visibility, what speed is too fast, on the part of a passing vehicle?

In our imaginary estate road, if the reverser's visibility extends to, say, 50m, which of these is too fast on the part of the other party:-

- 30mph, covering the distance in 3.7 seconds
- 40mph, covering the distance in 2.8 seconds
- 50mph, covering the distance in 2.2 seconds
- 60mph, covering the distance in 1.9 seconds
- 70mph, covering the distance in 1.6 seconds
- 80mph, covering the distance in 1.4 seconds

The OP said the other car stopped approx 2 car lengths away

Guidelines suggest this is the stopping distance for driving at 20mph

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312249/the-highway-code-typical-stopping-distances.pdf

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

What speed do cars become invisible?

I've just given you the data on that. Halve those figures if the visible distance is only 25m. A car that is not there, and then on top of you 1.4 seconds later (25m/40mph) is effectively becoming invisible.

Could you kindly answer the question? How fast is too fast in the scenario described? If you think that the speed is irrelevant, please say so.

I'm only asking as the OP said the road was clear yet hit a car. So if you are looking at the road correctly you'd normally see the car approaching for moment before you hit it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to check both directions and then pull out. If it was a slow manouvre you would continue observations, but done more quickly, possibly not.

As it appears the OP was only aware of the presence of the vehicle when she hit it, it's reasonable to say they weren't looking in the direction the car was coming from. If she did, she would have seen it approaching, even for a moment before driving into it.

Yes. There are potential two directions to look in. If the other vehicle is going to be on top of you in a matter of 1-2 seconds, then the difference between collision and no collision may come down to which direction do you check first.

This is being unobservent which accounts to negligence.

I disagree. I can envisage particular scenarios where a reasonably competent driver could not have avoided a collision.

The other key part is the vehicle didn't drive sideways into the back of her car, she reversed her car into the side of the other car.
This is failing to give way to traffic already on the road.
This accounts to negligence.

This is irrelevant. Not only were both cars moving, but you are assuming a 90 degrees impact, when we don't know that. As I said, I don't accept (and I don't believe the law accepts) a general right of way irrespective of speed. By all means show me where it does.

FWIW, I imagine that the OP's estate is a bit like the place my brother used to live. The streets were twisty and very narrow, and the houses crammed in, often without much of a pavement. People still hooned around.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.452949,0.287529,3a,75y,59.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svUtKxbC6kyITVZMp54_0ag!2e0

Cornucopia

Retrogamer wrote: »

The OP said the other car stopped approx 2 car lengths away

Guidelines suggest this is the stopping distance for driving at 20mph

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312249/the-highway-code-typical-stopping-distances.pdf

Irrelevant.

(a) the car should have already been braking.
(b) the car will be slowed by the impact.
(c) we've already agreed that the HC figures are an over-estimate. I would expect a healthy BMW on a dry road to stop in one car length at 20mph.

I would say that achieving a 2 car length gap after a collision would put the original speed at impact much higher than 20mph, possibly considerably higher depending on the braking time already achieved.

Retrogamer

Perhaps you should have a read into this thread and LoonR1's posts on it with his advice. He's been giving advice there for years and still does and the incident below is very similar to the OPs

Here are some snippets from it

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=1231650&mid=388875&i=0&nmt=My+daughter+had+a+little+knock+last+night%2C+&mid=388875

LoonR1 wrote:

20+ years of claims experience, running the claims division for a very big insurer, multiple exams, several million claims handled and settled over those years either by me or some of my 1000+ staff, several £billion in reserves handled, ongoing or resolved, solicitors on my payroll, partner firms to outsource litigation to, legal counsel from the top law firms in London.

LoonR1 wrote:

1. It was not stationary in the OP, that is a subsequent embellishment.

2. The driver on the main road had right of way

3. You shouldn't reverse out of a drive onto a road. Whilst only cautionary advice, insurance is a civil matter, so no strict offence needs to be committed to be found negligent and therefore liable.

4. Assuming another vehicle is going to stop (see OP) just because you are moving, is not acceptable driving.

5. The OP states the 250 meters figure. That is subjective and may or may not bear any relation to reality

6. Looking to see it's clear then carrying out the manouevre without further observation is not acceptable in terms of attention to your driving.

7. Grasping at straws that the other car was on the "wrong" side of the road, when the "correct" side was blocked with parked cars.

8. Trying to claim he was "drunk". Poor.

Do you need anymore?