Car reversing out of park space.

Johno100

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Remember though that the group of pedestrians automatically includes people who can't drive, temporarily or permanently. Many reasons for people not being able to drive would make it difficult for them to either notice the car reversing or respond appropriately if they did. Indeed, it sounds like the OP did attempt to get out of the way, they just weren't fast enough for the route they chose - unsurprising really...

Well they saw the first car no problem and responded accordingly.

oldagetraveller wrote: »

Or maybe the driver would have seen the pedestrian if they (the driver) were exiting front first?

We don't know what the driver did or did not see. We do however know that the OP by their own admission failed to see a ton of metal.

Car_54

Marvel1 wrote: »

Drivers fault, they should ensure it's clear.

Always reverse in and drive out.

We don't know that it was the driver who failed to reverse in. Whenever I see someone reverse out I assume his wife parked it;).

DoaM

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

They should have looked.
You should have looked.

With a second or two's basic observation, either of you could have avoided this very easily.

You are suggesting that the OP is partially liable - which she is not. The driver is 100% liable, legally speaking.

Cetshwayo

Agreed driver at fault.

BUT

In the end might is right from a practical longevity point of view. OP if I had been you I would have slapped the car very hard and given him a big fright.

AdrianC

Mercdriver wrote: »

You are suggesting that the OP is partially liable - which she is not. The driver is 100% liable, legally speaking.

I am making no comment at all about legal liability.

I'm suggesting how to avoid legal liability even becoming relevant.

Car_54

Johno100 wrote: »

We don't know what the driver did or did not see. We do however know that the OP by their own admission failed to see a ton of metal.

Indeed we don't know what the driver saw.

If he didn't see the OP, then he is in breach of rule 202 of the HC, at least.

If he did see the OP, but continued regardless, then that comes within the definition of dangerous driving.

The OP may have failed to see the car, but he was under no obligation to look.

Mercdriver

AdrianC wrote: »

I am making no comment at all about legal liability.

I'm suggesting how to avoid legal liability even becoming relevant.

I suspected this was the case but that is not clear at all if you look at the words you used. Not everyone knows your posting history so their assumptions will be different.

Sea_Shell

With more and more electric "stealth" cars about I bet this'll happen more often. You use your ears as much as eyes, IMO.

Johno100

Mercdriver wrote: »

You are suggesting that the OP is partially liable - which she is not. The driver is 100% liable, legally speaking.

Legally speaking, but so was this guy.