Tricky reversing incident liability argument

mroutlander

Hi Guys,
I am putting the account of an incident that I was involved and want to ask you opinions/legal expertise.
To avoid bias, I will not tell which part was I. I am however asking you to follow the picture attached to understand the situation, so, refer to it. Also, the arrows indicate the flow of traffic/direction both vehicle were travelling. So:

The incident happened on a one way street, with flow of traffic allowed indicated by the blue arrow.

One vehicle (brown arrow) was reversing out of a drive into the one way street with the purpose of following the flow of traffic.
The second vehicle (yellow arrow) was reversing into the one way street (red line marks the end of one way. The yellow vehicle was reversing from a side road as shown by the dotted yellow line) with the objective of reaching the High Street (green line, with traffic allowed one way from right to left).
Vehicles collided by the drive entrance where the arrows meet.

The driver of the brown vehicle argues that the yellow vehicle shouldn't ever be reversing into that street as it constitutes dangerous driving and goes against the traffic flow, which he argues, is against the law. Also that from his perspective, due to the tall buildings on both sides of the drive, he didn't have a good enough view of the side from where the yellow vehicle came, but that the yellow vehicle had enough time to see him and avoid the collision since it happened with about half of the brown vehicle already in the road.

The driver of the yellow vehicle argues that, although he was sorry for the accident, since the High Street is a restricted road (no vehicles from 10am to 4pm Mon to Sat, except for access. The incident was on a Sunday) and that he needed to deliver goods to a store in the High Street, this was his only option to get reasonably close to the store to deliver and that is what he has been doing for 2 years (although the brown vehicle driver argues that the yellow vehicle could use the High Street since he was accessing an address in that road). Furthermore, the yellow vehicle driver argues that he didn't had enough time to avoid the collision and that the brown vehicle is at fault for reversing into the road.

Both drivers refuse to accept liability for the damage on the brown car (there was no damage in the yellow car since it was a 10ton lorry)

So, what are your opinions?

PS: I will answer if there are more questions.

angrycrow

There's a mistake in your diagram. Looking on street view shows that the no entry sign is between the drive the brown car was reversing from and the high street. This means at the point of impact the lorry had not technically contravened the no entry. 

The car has a duty to ensure it was safe to emerge from the side road / driveway. It was not safe due to the 10 ton lorry. In my view car is at fault but a lazy insurer might go 50/50 as both reversing. 

mroutlander

Hi Angrycrow,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, your point was also one of the arguments brought up by the yellow car driver. To which the brown car driver counter argued that the road markings on the end of the road (where red line is) are indicating that the one way road finishes at the floor markings, independently of where the "No Entry" signs are. Also, the google street view for that part of the street has a time stamp of 2015, the right hand side sign has unfortunately been moved slightly (now staying right before the drive entry in the opposite side of the road) while the left hand side sign stayed in the same place (by the wall close to the "private parking" writing in the wall). What is your opinion in that?

Also, I should add that the police was not helpful to solve the issue. They went as far as advising the Yellow car driver to not repeat the same maneuver due to the particularities of the road and prohibitions while on the same time asking the brown car driver to try parking in reverse from now on, to be able to emerge from the drive driving forwards. The police never tried to point fault :$.

angrycrow

So the police have acted entirely correctly, it is not for them to decide civil liability that is for the insurers. Sounds like good advice was given to both parties.

My opinion has not changed. 

Norman_Castle

I'd expect the no entry signs are placed where they are to allow access to the parking area, is there any another access to it, how did the brown car get there? If it is the only access the brown car should have allowed for vehicles entering from that direction.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8964614,-1.2696988,3a,75y,66.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stTs5Y0rPtIA6ZsKvxiFyUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The give way lines should be placed close to the signs but that could cause problems with vehicles entering then turning. No entry accept for access signs could be placed at the start of the road.

mroutlander

Norman_Castle said:

is there any another access to it, how did the brown car get there?

Hi Norman_Castle,

Thanks for your opinion.

Answering your question on other access to the street/parking:

The brown driver claims that he uses the high street, since the sign there only restricts driving from 10am to 4pm Mon to Sat (thus allowed Sun) and also for access, which he insists applies to him since it is the only way to access his drive. For the same reason he thinks that the Yellow driver should be using the same route, considering that the store for the delivery is around 50metres into the high street.

As said before, the yellow driver counters this argument saying that he is not allowed to drive in the high street due to the restrictions in place there and that he was advised to reach the store through this maneuver, which he has been doing for 2 years with no issues.

[Deleted User]

This will probably go 50/50 liability. Truck driver couldn't see what he was doing properly due to reversing down a narrow street, other driver obviously didn't check it was safe to emerge properly or use their horn to warn the other drive when they noticed them etc.

mroutlander

Thanks, [DELETED USER]

Marvel1

Provide the facts and let the insurance argue it out

Takmon

angrycrow said:

There's a mistake in your diagram. Looking on street view shows that the no entry sign is between the drive the brown car was reversing from and the high street. This means at the point of impact the lorry had not technically contravened the no entry. 

The car has a duty to ensure it was safe to emerge from the side road / driveway. It was not safe due to the 10 ton lorry. In my view car is at fault but a lazy insurer might go 50/50 as both reversing. 

I agree with what angrycrow has said. It is the brown cars fault for reversing out into the street and not looking, from what you have said they have just assumed it would be clear because of the one way street which is further up and not where the incident happened. 
It's also bad practice for them to be reversing onto the public highway when they could reverse into their driveway and go forwards onto the highway which would also give them a better view and the incident probably would have been avoided.