little car crash, who's to blame?

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

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

[TheFallenMadonna]

Is car 1 saying that they were driven into? A lorry reversed into me, and their insurance paid, because our accounts matched, and they were at fault. Both parties tell their side and the insurance companies resolve I think.

[Makeminealarge]

Car 1 is liable. All they needed to do was check mirrors before moving backwards. Clearly did not do basic checks. That is presuming car 2 had parked for a reasonable time before car 1 began reversing.

[catsareevil]

Was car 2 moving at the time of the collision?

[c0rnsilllkrunninglikealaydee]

car 1

[c0rnsilllkrunninglikealaydee]

which car were you?

[hatesponge]

car 1. you have to carry out appropriate observations before commencing a manoeuvre; had car 1 done so they would have noted the presence of car 2.

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

car 2 was moving, pulling into the space behind car 1 because it looked like car 1 was stopped, it was car 1 that hit car 2, but because it was front of car 2 and back of car 1 does that make 2 responsible regardless even though it was really 1 who did the hitting?

[DaisySteiner]

Car 1 is responsible but if the driver says you drove into the back of his car then it might be hard to prove otherwise without witnesses.

[Newtothisstuff]

Without any witnesses or an admission of liability.. Sounds like a 50/50 to me !!

[catsareevil]

That rule does not apply, otherwise people would be free to reverse into whoever they wanted and the person that they reversed into would be to blame.
Did the reverse lights on car 1 not come on?

I agree that it sounds like car 1 is at fault, but it may be hard to prove what actually happened without witnesses.

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

I'm sure 1's reverse lights must have but by that time 2 was in place behind (wasn't me was DH - car 2)

[CroissantNeuf]

Did car 1 not have reversing lights on?

If so then car 2 should maybe not have driven into space behind it?

[CroissantNeuf]

X'd posts re: reversing lights

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

1's lights were off (was last night), 2 pulled in behind, THEN 1 reversed (with reverse lights presumably, so short of quickly pulling out into the road to get out of the way which there wasn't time to do, there wasn't much 2 could do to react to the reverse lights IYKWIM

[SoupDragon]

Car 2 was still moving so I think they technically drove into the back of car 1 which was completing its manoeuvre.

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

1 turned lights off then pulled back as an after thought

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

1 was taking responsibility at the scene, but that's not to say they'll keep that up once they've slept on it!

[firsttimemama]

I did this about two months ago - Having driven for 20 years - and without an accident in the last 13! I was car 1 and I admitted fault - but the next day I did think that car 2 could have been moving! Also my lights were still on. I cannot see why you would turn lights off until you were fully parked an about to exit vehicle.

[Ambersivola]

Car 2 stationary in neutral gear with foot or handbrake engaged? Car 2 ignition off?

Car 1 reversing. Rapid deployment of car horn needed by Car 2.

IMO Car 1 to blame.

With the short distance, low speed impact, is the damage minimal? Or more involved with cracked bumper and lenses involved too?

[VivaLeBeaver]

If it was dark enough to legally need lights on then it's car 1 fault.

If it wasn't that dark then I'd say 50/50 could be argued for by car 1 as car 2 did go into the back of them. But car 1 has to take some responsibility for not looking in mirror, etc. But then car 1 can say that car 2 should have seen reversing lights, given them more time to complete parking, etc.

[MummyDoIt]

I'd say Car 1 was at fault but I suspect, unless they admit full liability, that your insurance companies will push you to accept 50/50. It's always difficult when it's one person's word against another's.

Similar thing happened to me. A car was parked on the corner of a main road, on the wrong side of the road, facing oncoming traffic. I was waiting to pull out of a side road. Parked car was stationary when I looked to see if road was clear but then started moving at the same moment I started to pull out so we had a minor bump. Even though he was going the wrong way down the road and not indicating that he was pulling out, I had to accept 50/50 liability. He claimed he was already moving when I pulled out and, with no witnesses, there was no way of proving he was lying.

[VivaLeBeaver]

And of course without witnesses car 1 might just turn round and say they weren't reversing at all and your dh smacked em p the arse.

I once had someone who went into the side of my car in the first place say it was their fault and then later tried to blame me. Which you would think was impossible when the damage was on the side of my car. But my insurance company said it would prob end up 50/50. I suddenly found two witnesses to back me up. . Then it was all found to be his fault.

[ginmakesitallok]

I'd say Car 1's fault - lights should have been on (how was car 2 to now they were reversing otherwise?) and should have looked behind them

[ReduceRecycleRegift]

car 2 wasn't finished the manouver but was almost there, so yes moving and in gear, don't know if car one had hand break on at the time when 2 started to pull in but had pulled in and turned lights off before then deciding to go back again

2 didn't beep his horn it was too quick they were quite near each other

[alemci]

to me it sounds like car 1 was at fault. what if car 2 had been a person? He/she should have checked it was safe to manoeuvre.