Parked car opened their door in to my moving car as I drove past. Who's at fault?

daveyjp

To avoid 50:50, argument being you were too close to the other cars if a door was opened and it hit you, you need a very good case.

prowla

IMHO, it's up to the person opening the door to be sure that it was safe before doing so.

Fortunately, they didn't injure themselves, though.

angrycrow

Ignore suggestions of 50/50, that would be true if you had front damage. You say the damage is to your door showing her door was opened after you started to pass her. If your wing mirror missed her door it adds even more evidence she opened the door into you. Only an inept handler would settle this case on a 50/50 based on what you have told us here.

Retrogamer

tberry6686 wrote: »

How on earth can it be 50-50. The only way that the op could have any blame is if he swerved into the door of the parked car and that would then be his fault entirely. There is no feasible way (from what I can see) that this can be anything but 100% fault on one side or the other. The op claims that the other party opened their door into the side of his car so would be 100% not the op's fault.

These things can sometimes turn 50/50 because people often lie.

I.e the person says the car door was open for quite some time then the OP drove into it. In that instance, the OP would be 100% at fault.

By the OPs story, the other party is 100% at fault.

Without evidence either way, insurance companies can't tell which is correct so they do a 50:50 liability split.

The saving grace seems to be if the damage is to the side of the OPs vehicle, then it validates the door was opened into them, rather than them driving into it.

dannyrst

In the highway code, you are supposed to leave enough room for a car door to open when passing parked vehicles where possible.

If they argue that you were able to leave more room but didn't, it will probably come down 50/50. You didn't give enough room and they didn't judge the room when opening the door.

Unless you can get evidence, I'd accept the 50/50 settlement outside of the insurance company.

OnanTheBarbarian

angrycrow wrote: »

Ignore suggestions of 50/50, that would be true if you had front damage. You say the damage is to your door showing her door was opened after you started to pass her. If your wing mirror missed her door it adds even more evidence she opened the door into you. Only an inept handler would settle this case on a 50/50 based on what you have told us here.

/\ THIS

There is no way I would suggest to one of my clients they accept a 50/50 with these circumstances and area of damage. The other driver is deluded. Their insurers may try a 50/50 but deserve to be hosed down with court proceedings if they don't yield.

dannyrst

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

/\ THIS

There is no way I would suggest to one of my clients they accept a 50/50 with these circumstances and area of damage. The other driver is deluded. Their insurers may try a 50/50 but deserve to be hosed down with court proceedings if they don't yield.

What if the door was already slightly open as the OP was coming up to the car. OP didn't notice it was open and the passenger proceeded to open the door further. It could then be argued that the OP wasn't paying attention to the fact the door was already open with the possibility of someone getting out.

OP - invest in a dashcam. You'd have all the evidence you need to prove you were/weren't at fault.

Retrogamer

dannyrst wrote: »

What if the door was already slightly open as the OP was coming up to the car. OP didn't notice it was open and the passenger proceeded to open the door further. It could then be argued that the OP wasn't paying attention to the fact the door was already open with the possibility of someone getting out.

OP - invest in a dashcam. You'd have all the evidence you need to prove you were/weren't at fault.

Then the person who opened the door would still be at fault.
It's their responsibility to ensure the path is clear before opening their door. If they fail to check it's clear and cause damage by this failure, that's a slum dunk for being the negligent party.

The driver on the road has established right of way and can only be held liable if they drove into a door that was already opened.

As mentioned, this would normally mean the damage would be at the front or rear of the vehicle, depending on direction it was driving.

dannyrst

Retrogamer wrote: »

Then the person who opened the door would still be at fault.
It's their responsibility to ensure the path is clear before opening their door. If they fail to check it's clear and cause damage by this failure, that's a slum dunk for being the negligent party.

The driver on the road has established right of way and can only be held liable if they drove into a door that was already opened.

As mentioned, this would normally mean the damage would be at the front or rear of the vehicle, depending on direction it was driving.

Simple Googling shows many examples of the driver of the moving vehicle being at fault or 50/50 settlement. I'm yet to find one where the parked car was found to be at fault.

For example:

I had a similar incident a few years back, some silly sod opened the door of his 05 Fiesta into the side of my trucks trailer, it tore the door off and did quite a bit of twisting to the shell!

despite my view to the contrary, I was deemed at fault for not leaving enough room as I passed the Fiesta.

The Fact my vehicle filled the lane I was in and I had oncoming traffic (the Fiesta was parked on the edge of the pavement, actually off the road) seemed to mean little.

Bah.

Car_54

Retrogamer wrote: »

Then the person who opened the door would still be at fault.
It's their responsibility to ensure the path is clear before opening their door. If they fail to check it's clear and cause damage by this failure, that's a slum dunk for being the negligent party.

The driver on the road has established right of way and can only be held liable if they drove into a door that was already opened.

As mentioned, this would normally mean the damage would be at the front or rear of the vehicle, depending on direction it was driving.

First, there is no such thing as "right of way" in this context.

Second, it is not clear why the OP was so close to the parked car. If there was no good reason, then he is also at fault.