Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

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.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

little car crash, who's to blame?

45 replies

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 12:02

car 1: pulled in to side of road, turned lights off

car 2: pulled in behind car 1 assuming car 1 was stopped (because it was still and lights off)

car 1 then reversed into car 2 to straighten up, not having noticed that car 2 had pulled in behind since they first started parking

it was car 1's 'fault' but is the rule where the car that ran into the back of another is always to blame (2) applicable here?

thanks

OP posts:

Original poster

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 12:41

so best thing to do? 1 doesn't want to go through insurance but has given DH his insurance details, get a quote and ask them to pay for our damage and IF they claim off us then pay for theirs?

OP posts:

SoupDragon · 04/02/2012 12:44

I dont understand why you are asking - you say car Car 1 admitted liability and doesn't want to go through insurance. What is the problem?

Original poster

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 12:46

Soup dragon we want to know what would happen if car 1 change their mind, like what has happened so some posters who replied.

OP posts:

VivaLeBeaver · 04/02/2012 12:46

Get a couple of quotes and present them with these and ask them for the money upfront. If they give you the money then take it and forget about it.

If they refuse to pay then you have two options. If you think the dzmge to your car isn't enough to warrant the hassle, likely loss of excess and increase in future insurance payments then just pay for the repairs yourself.

If the repairs are going to be loads then go through the insurance co.

Ambersivola · 04/02/2012 12:57

Just seen the response above about lights being off. Driver Car 2 assumed manoeuvre had been completed because Car 1 lights were off. Lights should always be on when driving or carrying out manoeuvres at night. Were Car 2 lights off because they had stopped moving and parked with ignition turned off and handbrake applied? That is probably why Car 1 did not see Car 2.

Car 1 was reversing without first seeing the way was clear. Supposing a person had stepped behind the car also believing that Car 1 had finished moving?

Probably a good idea to get reverse lights checked. And get rear parking sensors fixed that bleep if anything is in close proximity when reverse gear is selected.

My SIL admits that she needs proximity sensors all round her car including the sides!

Original poster

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 13:00

no 2s lights were on throughout. But it was in the middle of town so lots of lights about

OP posts:

Ambersivola · 04/02/2012 13:11

I've lost the plot here! Confused and muddled - definitely!

Original poster

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 13:37

the first car pulled up, turned lights out, so second car thought it was safe to pull in behind it, then the first car decided to pull back a bit after stopping and switiching it's night lights off. Second car never turned lights off as first car reversed into it while it was still straightening up in the space

OP posts:

Ambersivola · 04/02/2012 14:47

Car 1 driver needs an eye test. Surely Car 2's lights illuminate the cabin of Car 1. Procedure when putting car into reverse gear obviously not followed.

There is absolutely no excuse for not checking that it is safe to reverse.

A driver recently ran in to the back of my motor at a roundabout. Driver claimed (for several days) that it was my fault she drove into me because she assumed I had moved off.

Original poster

ReduceRecycleRegift · 04/02/2012 15:12

yes if it had been on a quiet residential street there is no way 1 would have "missed" 2 is there? can only assume that because it was right in the middle of town at a busy time that there were so many lights comming and going they didn't notice the new ones?

OP posts:

Ambersivola · 04/02/2012 16:11

If Driver Car 1 had looked in Rear View Mirror they would have seen Driver Car 2's face through the rear window - unless Car 1 was a Chelsea Tractor and Car 2 a low sports car.

People in supermarket car parks often drive into a space then unexpectedly reverse back out to straighten up.

SparkyTGD · 04/02/2012 16:18

Definitely Car 1 at fault, if you reverse back without checking & hit something its your error whether its another car/person/wall that you have hit.

Kladdkaka · 04/02/2012 16:33

I had a collision where the other driver insisted I was at fault even though she hit me. Her reasoning was that I turned right across her path. Which was true. However, I was following the main road which turned right across her path. Her path was once upon a time the main road but was now a single lane, one way street, with a give-way junction.

She jumped out of her car and went ballistic at me. Hello! You just failed to give way and crashed into the side of a car on the main carriage! Some drivers are just nutters.

RabidEchidna · 04/02/2012 16:39

Car one is at fault

MAYBELATERNOWIMBUSY · 04/02/2012 22:26

actually, cost of court case etc etc ,trust me on this one ,unless a driver ,where no police are involved , admits FULL liability , it s 50 /50, ins. companies simply do not need the 2 them >hassle !! NOW, if someone had wiplash ? !!!!!

VivaLeBeaver · 04/02/2012 23:08

It can only go 50/50 if you agree to it I thought. My insurance co tried to convince me and I told them to ram it. I'd paid extra for legal advice and I told them I expected them to assist me to fight it tooth and nail.

KingofHighVis · 04/02/2012 23:25

As both cars were moving it can only be 50/50

bananaistheanswer · 04/02/2012 23:47

If car 2 didn't stop on seeing the car in front select reverse (with reverse light showing) then there may be some liability on car 2. However, the onus is on the reversing car to ensure it's safe to begin their maneouvre so in your hubby's shoes I'd be arguing that car 1 was at fault. Them reversing has reduced your hubby's breaking distance, making the collision unavoidable, so blame squarely on car 1 IMO. Up to you if you agree to not go through insurance but I personally wouldn't. The only thing that swung my court case for me, when the woman who hit the back of my car denied being there, was the information that was recorded in my call reporting the accident to them. It's not worth the agro of getting into petty arguments with someone you only know 'cos they hit your car.

VivaLeBeaver · 05/02/2012 08:19

If I was in your Dh's shoes I'd be saying I hit the brake and was stationary at the point of impact.

Anna247 · 20/03/2012 22:32

A few weeks ago whilst my car was stationery (no one inside it) there was another car behind me also stationery, then a van behind it, the van hit and the middle stationary car which hit the back of my car, the car in the middle had no damage at all, yet I have damage to my rear bumper (new car), he first said he would pay for the damage without going through insurance, when I sent him the quote, he said it would have to go through insurance.Which is a company, the owners of the business has said it is not there fault and refuse to give me insurance details, the person driving the van accepted full blame for accidental damge which I got off him. I spoke to my insurance who said it is the Van that is liable to pay for the repair.My insurance company says that I should sort it out, why do I pay insurance when they say I can sort it out myself, as I am not at fault. What shoould I do now?Zurich is my insurance they said if I want then to get involved I have to pay the £350 access and then they will recover it, why should I have to pay for this when it is not my fault, and I do not have £350 I hope someone can help Thanks Anna

Flip

1 2