Just had a prang in my car - whos fault is it?

[curleyshirley]

Wonder if anyone can advise on whether there are any hard and fast rules for this sort of a car bump. I was returning home, and pulled in on the left hand side of the road to park. The space I pulled into was probably about two car lengths long. I pulled in, and went to reverse backwards to straighten up. As I went backwards, I reversed into another car that had appeared since I had pulled into the space, and was at a right angle to the pavement. This car was previosuly parked on the other side of the road, and was effectively attempting to do a three point turn, and did the first part of that turn as I was reversing within the parking space. (I hope this makes sense!). The damage wasnt huge - a dent to his bumper and a crack to mine. He was pleasant enough but did say "I will obviosuly be saying it was your fault as I was stationary at the time and you reversed into me". I dont know whether he was stationary or not, but I certainly couldnt prove otherwise. Is this therefore my fault? Or should I claim it was his fault for effecitvely driving into the space where I was parking?
I am awaiting a call abck from insurance company now, and thought if I knew where a bit better where I stood it might help - so if any legal bods are around I would be extremely grateful!

Oh, I dont know! Thats a tricky one! I think technically you are at fault? But I might be wrong. Your insurance co will be the best to tell you.

thats a weird one curleyshirley

I know nothing about nothing, but where were you looking whilst reversing?

I would imagine if he was stationary and you were moving, it's your fault, the theory being you should have looked in your rear view mirror before reversing, even though it had been clear 30 secs before.

Annoying though.

I think the approach is that the person behind has to be cautious, in other words, if you walk behind a car and the car had reverse lights on you knew the intention of the driver and should therefore beware. But yes, difficult to prove and you're better of saving your no claim bonus and just paying for damages. Unless its a huge sum.

If you've reversed into a stationary car then there's no dispute, it is your fault. If you can prove you were both moving at the time then you could possibly go for a 50/50 split. But doesn't sound likely from what you've said.

At least you're both ok.

If it was stationary and you were moving, it was your fault.
Sorry.

which side of the bumper - the actual side part of his car where it wraps around?

if he was stationary then it is technically your fault. However, I would be arguing both cars were in motion making it a knock-for-knock. And you will win. It is only his word that he was stationary and he was either pulling into or reversing into a space where someone else was manouevring.

IMO it is his fault as much as yours and I would be arguing that.

Think it's your fault but they might come to the conclusion it was 50/50

Furball - looking to the side really - checking my distance away from the kerb, not whether there was anyone behind me - because I knew how big the sapce was, was only reversing a bit, and knew I wasnt being followed down the road by any other cars, so it was literally like something appeared behind me from out of the blue! (though appreciate regardless of that you could argue I should technically have been looking in rear view mirror, not particularly defeding it, just explaining that it is a maneouvre I do every single day and you just 'know' the space around/behind you). It was also dark with very little streeet lighting, so to be hoenst even when I heard the crunch and looked into rear view mirror I didnt instantly see there was a car there.

I just wouldn't take his word that he was stationary - if he was manoeuvring then he wasn't intending to be stationary.

Bit different to someone driving into an unattended car

Not a legal bod but think as you reversed into him you'll be told you should have been looking. Pretty stupid thing for him to do as all cars have blind spots.

Was he stationary? I mean, if he was performing a 3 point turn then he must have been moving no? Even if he had come to rest whilst he shifted gears that can only have been for a second or two. IMO I would make it clear that he drove/reversed into a space whilst you were parking and that you had checked behind you so he must have continued even though you were reversing.

Sorry I would say it is your fault as you should be looking behind you when you reverse. When I was learning to drive, my instructor said that not looking back when you are reversing is now considered the same as if you were looking backwards while driving forwards if you see what I mean.

If you reverse, you should be looking where you are going and therefore should have seen the car.

Sorry! Hope it doesn't cost you too much!

Thanks all - appreciate everything people have said. I agree, he was manoevering rather than stationary - as you say, if he was stationary it was literally for one second while he changed gears. And I have nothing to prove he was statioanry other than his word at the scene: I only stopped the car to change gears - so he got into the space and became stationary very quickly if he was (or, it was just extremely bad luck for me - or good luck for him - that the impact was at a moment he was staionary!). But yes, there are different ways of looking at it, and I take on board what chloemegjess says: that technically if I am reversing I should be looking in the mirror.
Well, I will dispute it with the insurance, and see what becomes of it. Fingers crossed I dont have to accept liability. Is all just a pain as much as anything else, especially at 37 weeks pg .

you could say, because he was not pointing the right way in the road, you couldn't see him as his lights weren't showing to you they were facing across the road widthways

Thanks, I will furball. I do think the fact it was dark played a big factor and I had forgotten to mention that in my description. Would be fine if it went 50/50 - dont feel I want to agressively make him admit liability (dont think that would be right), but feels geuninely like one of those things: he did a stupid thing, and I should have checked, and fairest would be a 50/50.