Who Is At Fault

[d2dave]

A person I know was involved in a minor prang. She was reversing out of an angle park when she hit a car that was going against a NO ENTRY sign.

Who is at fault?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/08/926.jpg

[DBT]

Were both vehicles drivable following the collision?

Did Police attend?

I ask because it may be difficult either way to "prove" fault, unless police attend and call it.

In which case just claim on ur insurance and claim other driver is at fault.

I had a prang a few years ago and the "at fault" party was in dispute. We called police who established no one was injured and both cars were drivable. They couldn't leave fast enough. They advised us to "just sort it out with our insurance companies, cause if they had to do paperwork, someone was going to cop a neg driving".

My repair bill turned out to be over $4k. I told insurance what the cops said. I was not charged an excess.

[d2dave]

No it is only minor. I am only asking as this discussion came up tonight with a group at the local footy club.

Every one in the group were adamant that the car doing the illegal turn was at fault, based on what he was doing was not legal, but I am not 100% sure.

I base my thought on this. Many years ago I lived on a bend on a very busy road in Melbourne. I had no off street parking so the only legal place to park was on the road side.

However this was dangerous so I chose to illegally park on the nature strip.

I did however have concerns being parked illegally, that if some one did hit me I might be at fault. I sought legal advice and was told being illegally parked does not give a person the right to run into my car.

So I am basing my thought on my OP question that just because a vehicle is turning illegally does not give a person the right to reverse into him.

Interested in others opinions. Do we have any legal eagle's amongst us?

[Blknight.aus]

The person operating the vehicle in reverse.

[GuyG]

I'd agree with Dave, vehicle A - the one reversing out onto the road has to give way to all others - vehicles/pedestrians/cyclists - already on the road regardless of whether they were breaking the law or not.

[Disco Muppet]

^X2
Person entering shouldn't have been there, but the reversing party still have a responsibility to ensure they don't hit anything/one whilst executing their maneuver.
Unless you can prove she had reversed and was stationary and the person entering the parking area actually hit her.

[Homestar]

If it was a car park off the road, and no one witnessed it, it would be impossible to prove one way or the other. In most carpark prangs blame ends up being split 50/50, no matter who was at fault.

[JDNSW]

Both drivers are at fault - reversing is always at fault, and going against a "no entry" is also automatically at fault.

Same sort of situation with two cars that collide when both are backing out of opposite slots in a car park.


In both cases however, you have to distinguish between fault and "cause". Any accident will have multiple causes (in this case including the attention paid by the drivers, the layout of the road, the design of the cars, action of passengers, weather, time of day etc), but whether any particular one of these is the legal "fault" is another matter.


John

[amtravic1]

Was car B doing a U turn. If so I believe they would be in the wrong. In Victoria at least the rules for a U turn are very clear and simple. Vic Road Safety Rules 2009 states simply "Vehicles doing a u turn must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians "

There is no ifs buts, point, clauses. A simple one sentence law.

I have successfully just challenged an insurance company who tried to blame us when a driver did not give way to my learner daughter. I told them to go and read the law and I had the incident on camera and they just went away.

[JDNSW]

Was car B doing a U turn. If so I believe they would be in the wrong. In Victoria at least the rules for a U turn are very clear and simple. Vic Road Safety Rules 2009 states simply "Vehicles doing a u turn must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians "

There is no ifs buts, point, clauses. A simple one sentence law.

I have successfully just challenged an insurance company who tried to blame us when a driver did not give way to my learner daughter. I told them to go and read the law and I had the incident on camera and they just went away.

And the same law applies to a reversing driver - as I said, both.

[AndyG]

Whichever one is a white Hilux is at fault, :wasntme:

or both equally negligent, at fault. So 50/50

[BMKal]

Whichever one is a white Hilux is at fault, :wasntme:


That's a terribly prejudicial view and an extreme generalisation ..................

I like it. :D

[Bigbjorn]

In the late '80's I owned and ran a machine shop for a while. I had a Jap forward control van which had appalling side and rear vision. I got quite accustomed to horn blasts and angry shouts when backing out of parking slots. I couldn't see out the back or sides so just backed out slowly. If passing vehicles didn't like it, too bloody bad. All drivers should be aware that drivers of many vans and utes with canopies and similar vehicles can't see them and should keep their distance from a reversing vehicle.

[Redback]

Both at fault, comes down the law of common sense.

Baz.

[PhilipA]

Just don't try and be nice and help the other driver.

I was stopped waiting for a car space when a young lady P plater backed out of a space into me.
I had about $700 worth of damage.
I thought a poor P plater would lose HEAPS by losing her excess and having the insurance company jack up her premium so went around to her house and offered to do it privately .
Met by torrents of abuse from her and mum. She couldn't accept it was her fault as her insurer had told her it was, and that somehow I shouldn't have been there.

Last time I ever tried to be nice .
Regards Philip A

[solmanic]

I'd agree with the statement that the parked car had to give way to all traffic and is therefore at fault. The car doing the illegal U-turn whilst not the "at fault" party to the collision would still be eligible to receive a fine for performing an illegal manoeuvre. But reversing into a U-turn lane is also not the correct way to do a U turn. The car reversing should have turned back into the traffic lane against the flow of traffic.

IF however, the car doing the illegal U-turn actually turned into the turning lane whilst the reversing car was backing back, then there would be an argument that they were at fault as there is no way the reversing car could have reasonably foreseen that a car would be coming through that break in the traffic island. But they would have had to actually hit the reversing car, not the other way around.



...for every season, turn turn turn, there is a U turn, turn turn turn...

[olbod]

Dave, you forgot to sign and date your sketch !!!

[DiscoMick]

Both are at fault. The driver turning against the sign is obviously at fault, but the reversing driver also has a responsibility to operate the vehicle safely.

[AndyG]

That's a terribly prejudicial view and an extreme generalisation ..................

I like it. :D

I believe white Hiluxs and their drivers are the only section of society we can hang **** on and not incur the wrath of Section 18.C

Section 18.C.1 says 'above not applicable to white hiluxes :p

Bugger, I just remembered, I drive a white hilux, company car.

[DeeJay]

I can only add that if 2 reversing cars collide, the insurance view it as 50/50
Either way, in the case of your friend, I reckon 50/50 will be the insurance companies assessment. I bet both parties will cough up the excess.
I had some dill drive up behind me in a Bunnings car park & just sit there & let me reverse ( in low ratio) into him. He didn't toot or reverse away, must have taken 5 sec for him to be in my blind spot. I lost my $650 excess on that one ( ripped a decent gash in his car though) - no damage to the Tray..