To think if you damage someone's car you pay for it?

[butsecretly]

Was driving down a stretch of road which is narrow. Room for 2 cars at a slow pace...usually all fine. Was driving up the road and there was a other car coming so I slowed and made sure we could both pass...except there was someone on the pavement carrying 2 tables, one of which must have been jutting out into the road which then scratched my car. I heard the scrape beeper my horn to alert her and pulled over to look...sure enough scratched...so I went round the corner to find the woman and she told me it couldn't have been her and that even if it was she would accept no liability. She works at /owns a local business...she was incredibly rude and dismissive even when I went to get the car and drove it back round to show her.

Am stunned someone could be so awful...

About to phone insurers so guess I'm paying for it...whether directly or through increased premiums.

Aibu to think who the hell behaves like that?!

I would say this is the drivers fault.

If I'm walking down the road carrying something, I would expect a car to give me a wide berth. And I'd be pretty cross if they didn't.

Your take on this is really wrong.

And yes, if there wasn't enough room for both the car coming the opposite way and the table, you should have stopped and then gone around her once the road was clear. If you were moving you're at fault for hitting her! Be thankful it was the table you bumped and not her!

I actually think you’re lucky that she isn’t alleging any injury or trauma from having items she was carrying hit by a moving vehicle.

^^ This. Would have been different if you were stationary.

Actually I can visualise this situation OP. You were on the road, not the pavement, the person carrying the tables was behind you at the point that the table leg damaged your vehicle. It is not reasonable to expect a driver to see something happening behind, especially from the side. She must have been aware that there were vehicles on the road and that she was responsible for damaging one.

It's the table-swinger's fault, but you didn't express yourself well in your opening post, OP.

The scratch is towards THE BACK of the side of OP's car. Therefore the table leg was not already sticking out into the road as the OP approached. As the OP drove past, the pedestrian (who was not standing still, she was walking with the tables) moved the tables such that one of the legs swung out into the road and gouged the OP's car as it went past.

OP YANBU and I can't believe people say you are. However, you are insured and she probably isn't and you will find it impossible to prove unless you have a dash cam which could somehow have caught it.

But you have just done a massive drip feed and said she let table swing into the road when you had mostly driven past.

Stop posting ladies- a mans opinion is being sought. That'll sort it. Phew.

Drip feed or convenient change of story?

In terms of liability she may be at fault but as she doesn't have insurance (as a pedestrian) you'll have to go through yours if you want the damage repaired.

But as cars are much bigger than people (even with tables!) I would say it's the OP's responsibility to ensure there is enough space between her car and any objects on the pavement, especially when those objects are humans struggling with heavy items who may not have clear visibility of the road or the space around them.

Mitzimaybe but surely the OP must have seen and passed the pedestrian carrying the table as she slowed down due to the oncoming vehicle?

The sensible thing to do would have been to stop behind the table carrier, wait for the oncoming vehicle to pass and then pass the table carrier giving them a wide berth

As a driver you are responsible for being aware of hazards. A pram that could suddenly slip off the pavement if the parent tripped, a dog getting loose from its lead or a person carrying a table. If the two collided then it's the driver at fault as you failed to spot and act appropriately to a hazard.

Sounds like you were in the wrong place at wrong time. You have to get close to the pavement to avoid touching the other car, however the lady was carrying a wide load and ideally needed cars to give her a wide berth.

I can see why she would think that you drove too close and may not realise she swung the table out. Unless there are cameras nearby you are going to find it hard to get her to pay for the damage/admit liability.

YA absolutely NBU OP.

Op, every school day for 6 years I have walked a narrow pavement next to a narrow road. When my girls were small I had to hold their hand, with me on the outside. My right arm and whatever it was carrying, usually a bag, has always technically been on the road (hovering above it). Drivers always wait until they can give me wide berth.
It sounds like you wouldn't, and if you clipped my bag, (or in your opinion, my bag hit your car) would have stopped to check your vehicle was ok, and if not, come chasing after me to claim damages. That is really strange.

Which part of the car got scratched? The front wing or further back?

You hit something being carried by a pedestrian, Y couldn't B more U tbh.

Are you saying that she purposely swung the table leg out to hit your car? If so, then Y most definitely ANBU and that would be criminal damage.

Sounds like your fault, if you had hit her person then you would be in big trouble, you hit something she was carrying resulting in damage to your car. I think you should be counting your lucky stars you didn’t cause more damage and things aren’t a lot worse , it is your responsibility to be aware of pedestrians

This is a tough one, but I would say you are in the wrong, if you were close enough to have your car touch her table, she could easily argue that you were close enough to run her over! It seems like you were way too close to the pavement, with the oncoming car it may have been best to stop before you reached the person carrying the table, let the car pass and then continue driving as far away from the pavement as possible.

Story A (the op) whereby driver oblivious to pedestrian and item pedestrian carrying until impact - Yabu.
This is massively different from Story B (the drip feed) whereby the table leg is thrust by pedestrian in to car - in which case Yanbu.
Answers will differ depending on which story readers go with.

I wouldn’t call your insurance - you’re telling them you hit a pedestrian
I’d make sure the lady was ok and chalk it up to experience
You shouldn’t have tried to pass her and the car at the same time

I can't find the photo of the pedestrian I took the other day. She had a rake slung sideways over her shoulder swinging it as she walked. Narrow pavement so her dc and dh carrying a spade were in front of her.

I slowed and gave her a wide berth as I drove up and parked outside my house. There is only a 3' pavement on one side of the road, stone walls my side, room only for one car to park and one to pass.

As I was unpacking the shopping the family had reached me so I said hello and asked her if she realised how dangerous it was swinging a garden rake at head height. Dh looks round and swaps tools with her holding the rake steady in front of him.

OP said the woman was carrying 2 bistro tables so I am imagining 3 legged round tables which she's put the two tops together so there will be legs top and bottom. Those tables should have been secured with bungees so they didn't slip. This was my interpretation of OP's post.

Clearly arethereanyleftatall lives in a similar road to me and the pavement is also the route to the infsnt and junior school nearby. Due to the car parking often one child will be in front of mum and a younger child. So do you not think that pedestrians carrying items should not be careful, obviously not talking about handbags here.

OP does have a point if the pedestrian moved out towards the road on a wide pavement without looking where she was walking or securing the load she was carrying.

Realistically even if the table leg moved out after you started to pass her, unless you were driving a limousine it would have taken you less than 1-2 seconds to pass her. If she was able move her table to hit your car in that time then she must have been too close to the edge for you to have safely passed in the first place.

Picture it in a hazard perception part of a test. Very narrow road barely wide enough for two cars. In order to pass oncoming car you need to sit close to pavement. At passing point for cars there is a pedestrian on your side close to the edge of the pavement with a wide/precarious load. What should you do? Do you really think the answer would have been carry on regardless?