Who is at fault?

[B92 8NW]

A friend of mine was driving to work a while back, he got to the end of the street wanting to turn left onto the main road. He pulled up behind a woman of Indonesian descent who was also turning left. Instead, the woman of Indonesian dissent (not a typo) selected reverse and backed into the front of my friend's car.

The first thing she does is gets out and says "You hit me".

Who is at fault? The process has gone on for ages now, my friend doesn't give a crap about his car as it is worth $400 but the Indonesian woman is demanding justice and retribution (as well as remuneration, probably the whole reason she pulled this farce off.)

Can you help?

[Xavie]

This happened to me recently except the person drove off and no damage was done (I was in a friends vehicle).

I would immediately say it's the driver in front. BUT I wonder if someone is not sitting the required distance away from the rear then it becomes their fault? I have no idea what is the "required" distance but I assume it's 1 metre.

Mind you these things always drag on if people make them. Legal crap is so easy just to keep dragging on.

Xavier

[tombraider]

If he wasn't moving then its her fault...

Witnesses would obviously help :D

Had the same done to me.... I had a witness...

Went to court... I won :D

[abaddonxi]

I wouldn't back into a $400 car if I was looking for a payout.

Did they call the police?

Did either have insurance?

Cheers
Simon

[Hymie]

He's in the wrong.
It happened to a co-worker of mine a well, they bloke who backed into him even admitted he stuffed up, but when it went through insurance it still came out that the car behind was in the wrong.
My advice to young driver is to pull up so you can see the rear wheels of the car in front touching the road, thats usually enough oops room.

[George130]

Your frind needs to have the car inspected if she is trying this on. If there is decent damage then they can show if he was stationary.
The woman is at fault in this instance.

[Ace]

If a vehicle hits a car in front it is the vehicle that hit the one in front that is always at fault, no matter what the vehicle in front does, this sounds stupid but its up to the driver behind to keep a safe distance and stay alert. In your friends case its the womans fault, she was stopped waiting to turn left and reversed backwards, she wasnt parking and your friend just pulled up to close she just reversed back. I am suprised there is any arguement, unless she sat there until there were no witnesses so she could do it deliberately.

[B92 8NW]

He was stationery, the usual accepted normal distance.

They both have insurance, her insurance co. says that he ran into the back of her so its his fault. He says she reversed into him.

She admitted during negotiations that she inadvertently selected reverse. But she's changed her story a few times:D

The police weren't called, they just exchanged details and left.

[muddydigger]

Any vehicle in reverse must give way to all tarffic, if she engaged reverse as apossed to rolling back and hit him she is in the wrong.

[colrospeake]

If you are parked to close to vehicle and they run into you from the front --- you are at fault. The person in front of you has the right to reverse backwards. If you are hit and have a witness- that the person in front of you reversed backwards -- I dont know -- may be you were parked to close.. If the paint work on the old work vehicle is bad maybe that is a new sting to get the car paid for or a new paint job. If you reverse into a police car or hit them to hard the airbag goes off and you can get away while the officer is trying to get the airbag under control so I have heard. No i have never tried it.
Redback

[Xavie]

Sounds to me like he should stand his ground because if the damage was not great to her vehicle the insurance will just give in and fix it all.

Xavier

[29dinosaur]

If no witnesses it's his word against hers. Sorry lady..... and if she reversed into him with witnesses - hope he got their numbers....

[Fusion]

A very sticky situation really . If there was now witnesses then it could go on for ages and still get nowhere .

I always thought that it doesn't matter what the front car is doing if hit from behind in any form the behind car is at fault ?????? could be way wrong on this one :confused:

[B92 8NW]

Any vehicle in reverse must give way to all tarffic, if she engaged reverse as apossed to rolling back and hit him she is in the wrong.

Hmm interesting. She didn't roll back as in taking off with a manual type thing, but reverse lights came on and went hell for leather backwards.

[29dinosaur]

Hmm interesting. She didn't roll back as in taking off with a manual type thing, but reverse lights came on and went hell for leather backwards.

Idiot - had someone do this to me once - but they accepted responsibility. tell her to whistle for it....

[Hucksta]

Hey Joel,

I'm a copper in Melbourne. I can tell you straight out that if your mate was stopped behind her and she reversed into him then she is definately at fault. the offence is 'reverse when not safe'. It is in the Road Rules Victoria - Road Rule 296 (1). If he was definately not moving and she reversed into him, it's on her head man.

I notice that in other posts that people have suggested that your mate is in the wrong because he stopped to close, that is wrong.

If the women was moving and your mate was moving and she stopped and he hit her because he was to close to stop in time then he would be at fault. Either way, if there are no witnesses then i can not see how the insurance company can find your mate at fault anyway. If this was reported to police as it sounds then it would be written off as unable to determine who was at fault due to conflicting stories and no witnesess......

Let me know if I can be of any other help

Hucksta

[Fusion]

Hey Joel,

I'm a copper in Melbourne. I can tell you straight out that if your mate was stopped behind her and she reversed into him then she is definately at fault. the offence is 'reverse when not safe'. It is in the Road Rules Victoria - Road Rule 296 (1). If he was definately not moving and she reversed into him, it's on her head man.

I notice that in other posts that people have suggested that your mate is in the wrong because he stopped to close, that is wrong.

If the women was moving and your mate was moving and she stopped and he hit her because he was to close to stop in time then he would be at fault. Either way, if there are no witnesses then i can not see how the insurance company can find your mate at fault anyway. If this was reported to police as it sounds then it would be written off as unable to determine who was at fault due to conflicting stories and no witnesess......

Let me know if I can be of any other help

Hucksta

Howdy Hucksta , you da man :D:cool:....... and it wasn't me doing the burnouts the other night :D:D:p:angel::wasntme: ...... joking :D

[Hucksta]

Joel...

Further to my last, tell your mate to stand his ground, by the sounds of it her insurance company is just blowing hot wind mate, i cannot see how in any way they would be able to hold him responsible, his insurance company should be able to tell him that anyway, they need to get their act together.

Moral of the story, if any doubt as to fault ladies and gents, call the cops, at least we can make recommendations about fault and so forth. Could help you avoid this sort of headache later on......

remember, us police think you are all important and we like to help....:twisted::twisted::twisted:...if you are lucky...:D:D

Hucksta

[Hucksta]

Howdy Hucksta , you da man :D:cool:....... and it wasn't me doing the burnouts the other night :D:D:p:angel::wasntme: ...... joking :D

Hey Mick,

I'll take a tyre sample from ya.... ha ha ha


I keep my eye on all fender, disco, landy and rangie drivers.......:eek::eek::eek:

Only so I can see the haves and have nots.... (I'm in the have nots)...:D:D

[B92 8NW]

Hey Joel,

I'm a copper in Melbourne. I can tell you straight out that if your mate was stopped behind her and she reversed into him then she is definately at fault. the offence is 'reverse when not safe'. It is in the Road Rules Victoria - Road Rule 296 (1). If he was definately not moving and she reversed into him, it's on her head man.

I notice that in other posts that people have suggested that your mate is in the wrong because he stopped to close, that is wrong.

If the women was moving and your mate was moving and she stopped and he hit her because he was to close to stop in time then he would be at fault. Either way, if there are no witnesses then i can not see how the insurance company can find your mate at fault anyway. If this was reported to police as it sounds then it would be written off as unable to determine who was at fault due to conflicting stories and no witnesess......

Let me know if I can be of any other help

Hucksta

Thanks Hucksta, I'll pass that onto him straight away. Woot:D

Should know by tomorrow night or Monday morning what the outcome is though, this has been going on since October 07!!

Oh and to all those out there with LT77s... be very bloody careful!!!!:D

[sam_d]

I'm just curious here but, how can someone 'accidentally' reverse in this situation? Surely, if you're waiting to pull out at an intersection surely you be in Drive (if in an auto) or at least be in a forward gear with the clutch down in a Manual.

To 'accidentally' select Reverse from either an Auto or Manual when you are waiting to pull out at an intersection must mean you are a bit daft.

[Hucksta]

this has been going on since October 07!!

Man, that is dragging on..... although insurance companies do put in a lot of effort to wriggle out of everything.

As opposed to the criminal systems burden of guilt 'Beyond reasonable doubt' the civil system works on 'Balance of probabilities'. That means that in civil matters such as your mates, the insurance company just has to prove that it was or probable that it occurred. In saying that though, from what I can see, there is no way they could even get close to that so I think your mate will be ok in the long run.

Hucksta

[slug_burner]

On the balance of probabilities Joel your mate is stuffed. :( If it goes to court without any witness I doubt that anyone could possibly find that it was more probable that a car reversed into the front of a staitionary car than a car moving forwards running into the back of a car.

But as insurance companies work on the basis minimising their costs and not on who is right or wrong. It will come down to what is cheaper, to take you to court or just to payout the claim. They will try it on and try to bluff you. The best chance your mate has of not getting to court is if the cost of the claim by this woman is not too expensive i.e. less than the cost of going to court.

[Ken]

He shouldve pushed her into the oncoming traffic then she wouldve been at fault for pulling out in front of someone else :o:D:D:angel:

[spudboy]

I'm just curious here but, how can someone 'accidentally' reverse in this situation? Surely, if you're waiting to pull out at an intersection surely you be in Drive (if in an auto) or at least be in a forward gear with the clutch down in a Manual.

To 'accidentally' select Reverse from either an Auto or Manual when you are waiting to pull out at an intersection must mean you are a bit daft.

It's not too hard! I did it a few times in the first week I had my new defender (as reverse is to the left and forward, rather the same as first). No-one behind luckily and now i have the hang of it I havn't done it since.

[defender90]

ask the insurance company about the filaments of her reversing lights if she backed into your mates car they would have been on and if they smashed when hitting your mates car the filaments would have disintergrated due to oxygen being exposed to them otherwise they remain intact.

[BigJon]

ask the insurance company about the filaments of her reversing lights if she backed into your mates car they would have been on and if they smashed when hitting your mates car the filaments would have disintergrated due to oxygen being exposed to them otherwise they remain intact.

I know a bloke who is a forensic scientist. I went to his work once (years ago) and saw a scooter headlight bulb through an electron microscope (I think). They could tell the globe was on when it was broken, thereby disproving a car drivers defence that he couldn't see the scooter at night because the headlight wasn't on.

[mudmouse]

If she's moved toward and caused her vehicle to collide with another (the other being stationary), it's her fault.

One of two offences: 1) Negligent driving, or
2) Not reverse vehicle with safety.


Negligence is defined as 'doing something a prudent and proper person would not do, or not doing something a prudent and proper person would do'. Its a due care thing...

The other speaks for itself.

[B92 8NW]

I just got a reply email from my friend, he has got it in the bag I reckon:D. The woman was not a nominated driver of the car according to the insurance policy... it is registered to a company.

[mudmouse]

HA!

That happened to me - this bloke reversed into my vehicle and did a switcheroo with his 'L' daughter and took the plates off. Fortunately a nice old fella propped him just as I was walking back to the car.:D I got it all sorted and the old bloke scored a case of DA. Fank you.

Legally you have to establish 'doubt'. In your mates case, even without a witness, it wouldn't be hard to argue the possibility of the validity for both sides' argument therefore raising doubt. You'd have conflicting versions. Each case is on its own but it's nice when the insurance companies do a bit of homework and investigate the matter.

[solmanic]

I'm a little confused as to why there is such a fuss if both cars were insured. I've been told that insurance companies have a "knock-for-knock" policy where they often pick-up the tab on one job even if their customer was not at fault with the understanding that another company may pick-up the tab on the next - sort of a swings & round abouts arrangement. So if each party just went to their own insurer to sort out the damage, with neither party accepting responsibility then I would not have thought your mate would have even needed to be further involved.

I have always been told no matter what the circumstances - never accept responsibility for a collision. Just pass the details to your OWN insurer and let them sort it out - company to company. It only becomes messy if the other car has no insurance.

Regardless of what the other driver said, your mate did the right thing by not accepting responsibility and should have just let his insurance company take it from there. The issue should not be whether or not they will cover the claim, just whether or not they will drop his rating down a notch.

[CraigE]

Then there is proportionate fault. You immediately are 10% at fault just for being there, wether you did anything wrong or not. Have heard this mentioned by Police at MVAs and in general reporting of accidents. Absolutely stupid logic. I would suggest this was brought about by insurance companies so they can get the excess from both drivers and wipe your no claim bonus.
:o

[Lotz-A-Landies]

He shouldve pushed her into the oncoming traffic then she wouldve been at fault for pulling out in front of someone else :o:D:D:angel:

Ken

That is just silly, because the last car into the bingle usually gets charged for the lot.

Wot I H8 about insurance companies is that they are always on for the cheapest way out irrespective of the person at fault. I had a incident where an idiot in a Jeep didn't like being beaten off at traffic lights, and then there were merging lanes and right turn bay. From the second I was across the intersection ahead of him, I had a right of way (ARR 149 from memory), anyway after completing the merge the clown tried to overtake in the right turn bay and ran out of room, my rear step bar removed the wheel arch extension from his car. No damage to my vehicle.

He claimed that I didn't give way, and claimed through his insurance. I spoke to my insurance and they say that in a disputed claim they just pay the claim and I would lose my excess. No way I thought, so didn't lodge a claim with my insurance, I told his insurance company's claims officers the story multiple times and refused to make any payment, when it got to their lawyers I re-stated my evidence, complete with, second by second diagrammes (very professionally done in .pdf), photographs of the road and intersection in question and the lack of damage to my car, then specified the particular Australian Road Rules which gave me right of way and suggested that I was happy for them to take me to court.

It all seemed to stop after that.

Diana

[Tank]

If you are reversing a car you have no Rights, you must give way to all other vehicles using that road.
Unless you have a witness in your favour it is your word against hers, Regards Frank.

[Tank]

If you are parked to close to vehicle and they run into you from the front --- you are at fault. The person in front of you has the right to reverse backwards. If you are hit and have a witness- that the person in front of you reversed backwards -- I dont know -- may be you were parked to close.. If the paint work on the old work vehicle is bad maybe that is a new sting to get the car paid for or a new paint job. If you reverse into a police car or hit them to hard the airbag goes off and you can get away while the officer is trying to get the airbag under control so I have heard. No i have never tried it.
Redback
THE LAW says that if you are REVERSING a vehicle (no matter the circumstances) you must do so SAFELY, Safely doesn't include running into another vehicle, YOU MUST GIVE WAY to all other road users if you are REVERSING, Regards Frank.

[Blknight.aus]

theres no need to even worry about what gear she was in...

try "failed to avoid a stationary object" for why shes in the wrong.

In 90% of circumstances, even if youve stopped in the wrong spot (assuming youve been stationary for sufficient time for everyone to be aware of the fact that your stationary) and someone hits you then they are in the wrong..

theres exceptions to this like if you stop in a blind spot or somewhere where people driving reasonabley (at the speed limit for the area) wouldnt be able to stop in time once they had seen you.


Every ADF driving test Ive ever given or taken has a box marked "strikes fixed object" and is an instant fail.

[mcrover]

Joel...

Further to my last, tell your mate to stand his ground, by the sounds of it her insurance company is just blowing hot wind mate, i cannot see how in any way they would be able to hold him responsible, his insurance company should be able to tell him that anyway, they need to get their act together.

Moral of the story, if any doubt as to fault ladies and gents, call the cops, at least we can make recommendations about fault and so forth. Could help you avoid this sort of headache later on......

remember, us police think you are all important and we like to help....:twisted::twisted::twisted:...if you are lucky...:D:D Hucksta

Not in Cranbourne.....:mad:

On 3 occasions so far with the locals they have just brushed us off and not done a thing, once with the DH's accross the rd doing burnouts in the T intersection near my house and smoking out the street, even with photo's and rego numbers as well as videos of the same bloke riding his quad bike up and down the street they say "we cant do anything" and disappear out the back without even taking any details.:mad:

I tried reporting some suspect Emails and they wouldnt even tell me who to contact so I rang Packanham instead who were very helpfull.:)

MrsMc had a stupid chick drive into her Carolla in a carpark while she was stationary and even though there was no rego lable on the car, the driver admitted it wasnt her car and wouldnt give any details other than her phone number so she went to report it to the local's and they fobbed her off as well and told her they couldnt do anything..:mad:

There are better cops around than what we have here I hope your one of them Huckster :mad:

[mcrover]

I had similar happen to me years ago, 1 week after getting the brand new AU III ute, this older lady rolled back into me in her Lancer with a tow bar.

The only damage at the time was a small crack in the bumper where the towball split it when it pushed through the hole that it seemed to be prefectly lined up for.

I asked her to just get in and let it roll back a little more so that I could remove her towbar and release her car from mine and what does she do, puts it in reverse and backs through my aircon condenser, radiator and smashes all the bumper and bumper mounts as well as stuffing her rear bumper and boot support panel.

She said at the time that she didnt understand what I wanted her to do and that she panic'd but when it came to the insurance claims she put that I hit her and added "at speed".

My boss had already spoken to her as the insurance co that she gave originaly didnt have a clue who she was so he asked her what her side of the story was and she backed me up so he knew I was telling the truth but I think when they recieved the quotes from my ute they tried to get out of it.

In the end we just ended up paying for both cars to be fixed through our panel beater as it was cheaper than fighting it through court and seems my car was fixed the same afternoon due to needing it for work it would have been difficult to proove on our behalf anyway.

It sux but even knowing that he is more than likely in the right, I'd be putting money on that he will have to pay for it. if he only has bomb insurance, the insure co's are normally not much interested in paying out anyway.

[procrastination inc]

"did the right thing by not accepting responsibility"

I object to that being a default response in any occasion. That is the sort of muddle headed legalese trickery that will stuff this country.

People need to own what they do.

[vnx205]

The first of the only two collisions I have had wrote of my A40.
I was turning right at a T intersection and a van T boned me from the right.
I was fortunate that a witness told the police that the van had just passed him at about 80 in a 60kmh zone less than a hundred metres before the intersection.
It probably also helped that as I realised he was approaching me much faster than I had expected a vehicle to do in a built up area, I kept going straight across the road and was prepared to run onto the grass on the other side to avoid him.
Problem was he decided he could get around in front of me and followed me onto my side of the road. I was well and truly on my side of the road when he hit me.
The attending police had no hesitation in saying that he was at fault and I think they were charging him with something like negligent driving.

The point of this story is that in spite of all that I got a letter from his insurance company a month or so later saying that I was at fault.
I told them the police were charging their client and heard no more about it.

I'm not sure whether the other driver had just lied to his insurance company or whether it was standard practice for that insurance company to try to bluff the other party.

It was over 40 years ago, but I don't imagine things have changed much.

[B92 8NW]

"did the right thing by not accepting responsibility"

I object to that being a default response in any occasion. That is the sort of muddle headed legalese trickery that will stuff this country.

People need to own what they do.

No its quite important. Did you know that a large supermarket chain in this country tells all its high school aged employees to never apologise to anyone they injure by accident - ie. If employee X hits customer Z with a trolley by accident, the required response is "Do you require first aid assistance", not "I'm sorry, my mistake, are you all right?" The latter insinuates that the employee and by extension the company are at fault, then customer Z can go off to start a lawsuit on the premise that X admitted fault.

Say you have an accident with a hoon in a commodore and step out and say "Sorry bro, that was my fault" you could be up for big $$$ even if his car was not roadworthy and illegally modified.

By saying anything relating to fault or responsibility, you've given perfectly admissible evidence for someone to sue you. It more "legal trickery" to provide an answer as that gives the other party something to work with.:(

[vnx205]

My second collision if anyone is interested, I think demonstrates that things are not always clear cut and sometimes insurance companies just pay up rather than making a fuss.

I was making a right turn across three lanes of traffic.
The traffic was all stopped by a red light.
They had all left the intersection open. There was sign at the intersection that said they should do that. (I've forgotten the exact wording)
I made it safely across two of the lanes of traffic.
What I didn't expect was that someone in a red Honda Prelude would come racing up the last lane near the gutter. (At the speed you would expect the driver of a red Honda prelude to drive.)
Consequently I hit him on the driver's side mudguard.
Both cars were still quite drivable but he wanted to make a big deal of it by leaving his car blocking the lane and ringing the police.
When they arrived, they were not impressed and told him to move his vehicle immediately. As it was such a minor incident, if I remember correctly, they just told us to exchange details and to report the incident to our local station.

I got a letter from his insurance company claiming that it was going to cost some enormous amount of money to fix the Honda. All the local panel beaters I spoke to reckoned the figure was greatly inflated.

I gave all the details to my insurance company, especially the bit about the Honda driver entering the intersection in contravention of a road sign.
They apparently did some investigating and came to the conclusion that they couldn't mount a strong enough argument that I was not at fault.
Everybody's insurance company just paid for their own repairs.

I suppose that in the eyes of the law I failed to make a right turn with due safety.
I believe the other driver ignored a road sign and a rule about entering an intersection when he wouldn't be able to drive out of the intersection.

In spite of the legal wrongs and rights of the situation, I still believe that in the circumstances I had good reason to expect that I could cross the intersection safely.

Anyway that was 10 or 15 years ago, so it doesn't really matter does it.

[Hucksta]

Not in Cranbourne.....:mad:

On 3 occasions so far with the locals they have just brushed us off and not done a thing, once with the DH's accross the rd doing burnouts in the T intersection near my house and smoking out the street, even with photo's and rego numbers as well as videos of the same bloke riding his quad bike up and down the street they say "we cant do anything" and disappear out the back without even taking any details.:mad:

I tried reporting some suspect Emails and they wouldnt even tell me who to contact so I rang Packanham instead who were very helpfull.:)

MrsMc had a stupid chick drive into her Carolla in a carpark while she was stationary and even though there was no rego lable on the car, the driver admitted it wasnt her car and wouldnt give any details other than her phone number so she went to report it to the local's and they fobbed her off as well and told her they couldnt do anything..:mad:

There are better cops around than what we have here I hope your one of them Huckster :mad:


Sorr to hear that you have dramas down your way Macrover, I guess it's ike any type of service, you get good and bad. I always try and treat people the way I'd like my family to be treated if they present themselves at a police station with a problem.

Hucksta

[Gromit68]

By saying anything relating to fault or responsibility, you've given perfectly admissible evidence for someone to sue you. It more "legal trickery" to provide an answer as that gives the other party something to work with.:(

Sorry - that's untrue - at least in NSW. You can apologize in any negligence situation and it can't be used against you in court.

This was changed to allow people to say they are sorry and for the other party to accept it and help them move in. It's especially relevant in medical negligence cases.

[B92 8NW]

Everything came together today rather quite nicely, even if it wasn't the most favourable of outcomes.

My friend does not have to pay to have the Indonesian Woman's car repaired as per se she didn't have any insurance and should not have been driving that car (not a "nominated driver", the car is registered to her workplace).

He has been [professionally] advised not to make a claim as it will be cheaper and less problematic to just fix the broken plastic on the suzuki and forget about it:D