advice on accident - who is liable ?

hazyfish

Hello all,
i was involved in a minor accident on the weekend. I was following car down a fairly narrow street. I stopped behind them, thinking they were going left down another street as i was. However, the car started to reverse - he was parallel parking into a spot to my left, and i hadn't noticed his reversing light until he started comign backwards towards me. I was stationary and then honked my horn to warn him, but he backed into the side of my bumper.
We got out to exchange details and he asked if hadn't seen him reversing - i said no, as i'd only seen it when he started. The accident isn't large enough for insurance - a thumb sized area of paint off my bumper and a bit scratched on the bottom of the light cover. I assumed he would assume liability because he backed into me, and would offer to pay for my paint. However, he said when we spoke on the phone that liability should be split - because he was parking i should have left at least a car width behind him to give the space for him to park. However, i only saw that he was reversing until he did, and i was right behind him. He can't have seen me or he wouldn't have reversed into me. He refuses to pay for my scratches on my car, and said that if i did go through insurnace it would be split liability. is this bullying or is he correct ? any advice or thoughts most welcome.

Scrapit

Did he indicate? I'd be surprised if it would go 50 50 if it happened as you described however the issue is proving it to the insurance companies. Dash cam?

lister

Assuming it is all exactly as described, 100% the third party's fault. You stopped behind him without contact. He cannot just reverse and expect his route to be clear - he has to check, which he didn't. He wouldn't drive forwards without looking (I hope...).

Beware his story changing if you go through insurance... You probably failed to stop and ran into the back of him before he started to reverse...

unholyangel

You're only liable if you were negligent. You are negligent if your driving falls below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver - which is one that drives in accordance with the highway code.

I think his negligence is pretty much guaranteed.

Rule 202
Look carefully before you start reversing. You should

use all your mirrors
check the ‘blind spot’ behind you (the part of the road you cannot see easily in the mirrors)
check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you.

And on your side, the only one I can think of that would remotely apply would be:

Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should

reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely

So if you were stopped behind him then I would say not negligent and totally his fault - as you clearly were able to stop safely and cannot be liable for failing to make his unsafe driving safe.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

You're only liable if you were negligent. You are negligent if your driving falls below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver - which is one that drives in accordance with the highway code.

I think his negligence is pretty much guaranteed.



And on your side, the only one I can think of that would remotely apply would be:


So if you were stopped behind him then I would say not negligent and totally his fault - as you clearly were able to stop safely and cannot be liable for failing to make his unsafe driving safe.

And Rule 202 continues to say “... reverse slowly while ... looking mainly through the rear window”.
Failure to do this is the most common cause of collisions while reversing.

chrisw

If you go through insurance you would have to declare the incident for the next 5 years (technically you should even if you don't go through insurance).

If it does go 50/50 through insurance, you will also lose your no claim bonus.

Annoying as it is, I would live with it or possibly touch it up with a bit of paint and forget about it.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

And Rule 202 continues to say “... reverse slowly while ... looking mainly through the rear window”.
Failure to do this is the most common cause of collisions while reversing.

I was trying to keep it short.

Plus, it's possible he did look and just didn't see! Drivers sometimes make the motion without action paying attention.

Car_54

chrisw wrote: »

If you go through insurance you would have to declare the incident for the next 5 years (technically you should even if you don't go through insurance).

I think you mean "legally" and "morally".

Korkyb

Car_54 wrote: »

I think you mean "legally" and "morally".

Nah... pretty sure they mean technically.

Norman_Castle

hazyfish wrote: »

but he backed into the side of my bumper.


However, he said when we spoke on the phone that liability should be split - because he was parking i should have left at least a car width behind him to give the space for him to park.

He should have ensured there was space to reverse, if there isn't enough space he should stop. If he'd hit a parked car its likely he'd have blamed that for being parked in the wrong place.


Did his offside rear hit your nearside front? If so its likely he just judged it wrong.

Car_54

Korkyb wrote: »

Nah... pretty sure they mean technically.

Civil law - breach of contract.
Criminal law - fraud.