Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

A quick car crash question...

10 replies

PigeonStreet · 04/03/2011 13:42

If you drove round a corner on a junction from a main road onto a residential estate and there was a car parked half on the kerb, half on road about 3 metres in from junction. If the driver of said car opened the driver door just as you came round corner and you then crashed into the door causing damage to both cars, who is at fault???

Anyone work for an insurers? Advice please...

OP posts:
Iklboo · 04/03/2011 13:50

I'd say other driver as he obviously didn't look in his mirrors/out of his window (ie - check for hazards) before opening his door. But that's just my opinion, I'm afraid.

maxpower · 04/03/2011 13:51

I'm not an expert but I'd say the insurers would probably find the driver of the moving car to be more at fault as it was that car that hit the stationary one iyswim

Resolution · 04/03/2011 14:26

I'm a solicitor, but divorce is my game. My PI colleague tells me it is the fault of the driver who opened the door.

  1. They didn't look before opening it (same as pulling our of a parking space really)
  1. They parked illegally (irrespective of yellow lines there are rules on parking too close to a junction) and didn't leave enough space to see someone coming.

If they won't pay to repair your car, check if you have legal expenses on your car insurance and use that. If you haven't got it, issue in the small claims court.

Avantia · 04/03/2011 14:36

The 'driver' of the stationary car is at fault. Although not driving - he is still deemed at the driver under road traffic law.

cuckooclock · 04/03/2011 19:38

I agree the driver of the stationary car is certainly at fault but is the driver of the moving car not partly to blame also - driving without due car and attention". Obviously driving too fast that he can't stop in time. What if it was a child who ran out from the kerb, would he still be at fault?

MotherMountainGoat · 04/03/2011 19:50

"driving without due car and attention"

Sorry, I don't usually point out typos, but that is a classic!

The same thing happened to our neighbour - he was driving along and someone opened a door right onto the side of his car. The stationary car was entirely at fault in that case.

Avantia · 04/03/2011 20:16

You can only stop in time if the 'hazard' (child , car door etc) and you are a distance and speed for the required breaking time, if you are already right at the location when the 'hazard' occurs then stopping distance is irrelevant .

Does that make sense ? Confused

sneezecakesmum · 04/03/2011 20:53

The stationary car for sure, unless it is mandatory for drivers of moving vehicles to possess precognition and know that some stupid idiot is about to put a hazard in their way!

Original poster
PigeonStreet · 04/03/2011 23:29

Thanks so much for this everyone. This happened to me today and having looked at the damage to my car it is clear (IMHO)by the position of the damage that the door hit my car part way down the car therefore suggesting that had the door already been open (and therefore visible to me) it would have damaged the front of my car and not the wing.

Anyway the insurers are dealing with it. I do have legal cover as well so we will see.

OP posts:
sneezecakesmum · 05/03/2011 10:53

I'm sure it will be OK. Not many drivers are dumb enough to drive straight at an open car door! Even insurers can work that one out!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page