Car incident

rosiesmith11

So, I’d be really intrigued to know, following an incident my sister has been involved with, what the general consensus is. 

My sister is parked in a private, shared car park (6 cars) which has a driveway, probably the length of 4 cars. 

She begins to reverse out (much easier option than turning the car round in a small, full car park - which she has done every day for 10 year, but in hindsight, not the most sensible), and as she reaches almost the end (maybe the equivalent of 6 bricks width and a pavement before the road), a neighbour reverses backwards round the corner - pretty fast, reversing from
the right, was parked up on the wrong side of the road, and the cars collide. 

Who here, is at fault? 

We are having a family debate - if my sister had reached the road then absolutely not her right of way, but she hadn’t. 

Factors of course, both cars moving. 

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

The neighbour advised they didn’t want to go down insurance; didn’t care about their car. But, my sisters is a small SUV with significant damage to bumper. Since this, my sister has contacted insurance and the neighbour has advised they will say my sister is fully at fault. 

Damage to my sisters car is on passenger rear and wheel arch, neighbours car is a scuff in the middle of the car. 

TadleyBaggie

Probably  50/50

rosiesmith11

TadleyBaggie said:

Probably  50/50

Thank you - is this on the basis that both parties are reversing? Are other factors ever taken into account when it’s a reversion collision? 

AdrianC

Neither of them have any actual evidence as to what happened...?

Then absolutely straight split liability.

rosiesmith11

AdrianC said:

Neither of them have any actual evidence as to what happened...?

Then absolutely straight split liability.

With no looking into where damage is on cars etc? 

Car_54

rosiesmith11 said:

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

Neither driver should have been relying on their mirrors - they should have been looking back in the direction they were going, as they would have been taught before passing their tests.

This is precisely because mirrors, unlike eyes, do not have peripheral vision which might have averted the collision.

rosiesmith11

[Deleted User] said:

rosiesmith11 said:

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

Neither driver should have been relying on their mirrors - they should have been looking back in the direction they were going, as they would have been taught before passing their tests.

This is precisely because mirrors, unlike eyes, do not have peripheral vision which might have averted the collision.

This was only in the case of the driver parked round the corner, to reiterate the point they had no clear view of anything round the corner they wanted to reverse - especially as they were pulled up on the pavement, on the same side of the road they were reversing. 

The neighbours car did not leave the pavement. 

Not sure of how easy prevention is when someone swings round less than a cars length. 

AdrianC

rosiesmith11 said:

[Deleted User] said:

rosiesmith11 said:

One is reversing down a straight driveway, the other reversing around a corner - arguably wouldn't have been able to see anything in their wing mirrors because they are so tightly parked on the corner. 

Neither driver should have been relying on their mirrors - they should have been looking back in the direction they were going, as they would have been taught before passing their tests.

This is precisely because mirrors, unlike eyes, do not have peripheral vision which might have averted the collision.

This was only in the case of the driver parked round the corner, to reiterate the point they had no clear view of anything round the corner they wanted to reverse

So your sister saw the car she was about to reverse into, but kept going anyway...?

Her bumper hit the middle of their car, remember.

The_Fat_Controller

She said. He/she said.

50/50

Both cars were moving, they didn't see each other in time, equally at fault.

Marvel1

Both reversing, none had clear vision, 50/50

Sandtree

67:33 against.... only joking, 50:50 in the absence of any video etc