My friend got himself into a bit of a pickle and hasn't come across a situation like this before, any help would be much appreciated! Here's his story:
He was doing a 3 point turn on a not so busy road as he was doing the reversing, he saw a van in the distance (10 meters away maybe? ) and he saw it slow down. So he began to reverse slowly but as he did he felt a nuggle on the back (uh oh!).
So they pulled over with their hazard lights on and exchanged contact details. Except from what he told me, they both didn't get each others address/insurance details or photos. Also the driver of the van is not the owner (she was foreign from what he said). They only swapped phone details. She has called up my friend asking for details and my friend has done the same. She stated that she is not insured and neither is the van.
There is only minor dents and scratches on my friends car but the van has some dents on it.
Any suggestions on what he should do? Thanks in advance!
budgel,
Jun 27, 11:25am
He should notify his insurance company whether he wants to make a claim or not. Next time the foreign driver rings, ask for her drivers licence number. She may not have one.
supernova2,
Jun 27, 11:29am
From the sounds of it your friend might be liable for the lot. Morally he should arrange to get the vehicles repaired however TBH I'd do absolutely nothing until the owner of the van appears on the scene. Is your friend insured? If so he needs to advise his ins coy of the accident but he does not need to lodge a claim unless of course he wants his car repaired.
geni88,
Jun 27, 11:37am
That's what I thought too. My friend is insured and told me he has just asked if she has insurance. He also asked if she has a drivers license. After some more digging from myself, he said that she stated she herself hasn't driven around in NZ much (Not sure if it means anything, I still think he's liable)
It's his first accident so he's a bit stressed! He doesn't want the car repaired as the damage is just aesthetic.
chas10,
Jun 27, 4:30pm
Has he accepted blame for the accident? If so then he is obligated to pay for the damage to the van through his insurance. If not then I would still notify my insurance company and explain what happened and let them deal with it.
stevo2,
Jun 27, 4:59pm
Your friend was doing a 3 point turn and hit a van while reversing. He/she is in the wrong. They need to man up and fix this persons vehicle, irrelevant of this persons nationality or whether "they have driven around NZ very much" What has the other driver done wrong? Nothing.
Notify insurance co and ask the other driver to obtain a wrtten quote for repairs. Then they can see whether its worth claiming or just pay up for the repair work. If claiming, your friend can get their car fixed as well since there is only one excess.
2sheddies,
Jun 27, 6:05pm
To digress from the main point ever so slightly.
Although it does sound like the 3 point turner might have fluffed it a bit, I can't help wondering why the van driver kept going and ended up collecting him instead of completely stopping, thus avoiding this whole situation. If you're paying proper attention and see a car doing something silly or unusual ahead, and their actions might directly impact on you, why continue into the path of danger? . Easy to speculate when you're not there I know but, surely would have been a much better option to stop for a moment or two and let the other guy finish doing his turn. We all know we have to often compensate for others' errors. Maybe a bit of a lack of experience from both parties perhaps?
msigg,
Jun 27, 6:27pm
Just get your friend to pay some cash wjth receipt to the van driver and keep all insurance companies out of the deal, This is the best way.
intrade,
Jun 27, 9:00pm
geeze can you people not read or what is going on! in clear english on post 1 She stated that she is not insured and neither is the van
lookoutas,
Jun 27, 9:11pm
But if OP's mate is in the wrong (reversing into path of oncoming) then it don't matter whether fanny head has insurance, licence, Rego, WOF or what. Perf's insurance has to cover it.
He's bloody lucky the Cops weren't called, as he would'a got the ticket.
mrfxit,
Jun 27, 9:18pm
Totally agree.
However, NZ law has it that while reversing a vehicle, the driver is 100% at fault for any damage regardless of anybody hitting them deliberately or not.
This has been tested on the likes of Fairgo where a car is backing out of a supermarket carpark & someone has decided to squeeze past even tho it's clear that the reversing vehicle is already 80% out of the carpark & caught the rear end of the reversing vehicle.
Reversing driver pays unless they do a civil action court case to prove the impact was deliberate. Same for rear end impacts
It's a "Counter claim" type situation.
mrfxit,
Jun 27, 9:22pm
Correct, Neither the van (owner) or van driver are insured. This becomes a civil suit that some insurance companys will follow up on behalf of the client & some won't, presuming ONE driver is insured.
If no one is insured, both either walk away or 1 takes the other to small claims.
kazbanz,
Jun 27, 9:27pm
THIS is the only part that matters-saw a vehicle approaching and chose to reverse anyway. So your friend pays for the damage their impatience caused.
curlcrown,
Jun 27, 9:28pm
Weather or not the van was insured makes no difference to who is liable. Who owns the van makes no difference as to who was liable. Even if the van driver has no licence it makes no difference to who was liable. Based on the first post it seems like the person doing the three point turn is liable, even if the van drives was unlicensed. If you are liable you are liable. If the other driver has no licence that is a different matter and she could be prosecuted for that but it doesn't shift liability for the damage.
mrfxit,
Jun 27, 9:38pm
Current law say's correct. Regardless of the claimants possible bad attitude or deliberate arrogance approaching the situation or impatience causing the damage.
pauldw,
Jun 27, 9:48pm
I think more info is needed. How far had the 3 point turn progressed before the other car arrived on the scene? If the reversing car had nearly completed the move leaving a gap less than a couple of metres the van driver must take some responsibility for barging through.
gedo1,
Jun 27, 9:51pm
Your friend decided to continue reversing when the estimated distance from an approaching vehicle "a van in the distance (10 meters away maybe? )". 10 metres. ! and the van is moving. ? Your friend needs a whole lot more real driving experience it would seem at judging distances, including stopping distances, and the room his/her vehicle takes up on the road. Then there is the need to apply a bit more thinking power to life.
kiwicarol,
Jun 27, 9:58pm
often insurance co's regardless of who is deemed legally at fault in non injury incidents deem both to blame. ( i have had a couple of incidents of this) The uninsured driver in such cases is entirely responsible for their own repairs. You can seek advice from your insurance co without making a claim.
kazbanz,
Jun 27, 10:08pm
You did actually read the post I quoted didn't you? MOVING van 10m/30 feet away.Chose to start reversing anyway. allowing even that its a 50km/h zone. Would you reasonably expect a moving vehicles driver to react and then to stop in 10m?
pauldw,
Jun 27, 10:32pm
I think there's a reality gap between describing a vehicle "in the distance" and then saying about 10m. That's only about 2 car lengths away. If a 3 point turn is needed the road is narrow. Even the 1st right turn manoeuvre probably blocks the road. I think only a fool would try to drive through rather than stopping.
mrfxit,
Jun 27, 10:51pm
Why am I having trouble with the "10 meters" bit? Would make a lot more sense if it was 100meters 10 meters is only approx 2 car lengths, no one in their right mind would reverse knowing the car was still approaching from behind at a 10 meter distance. Perhaps the approaching vehicle was stopped when last sighted at 10 meters?
gabbysnana,
Jun 27, 11:10pm
duty of care, both parties had an obligation , the van driver would have seen what was going on and should of come to a stop, the car doing doing the 3 point turn was already in the manuover. Regardless of what you say.
geni88,
Jun 27, 11:19pm
Thanks for the input guys. Just spoke to him and he's going to go through insurance and sort it out. I still think he's at fault though and told him to be more patient when driving!
If anything else comes up I'll keep you guys posted!
mrfxit,
Jun 28, 6:20am
Yep thats the logical thought for sure. Fairgo had it with a viewer that was over half way out of a carpark when the next car driving down that row decided to push past disregarding the backing vehicle (as they do) & it was the backing vehicle that was at fault by law.
2sheddies,
Jun 28, 6:38am
That's right, I remember hearing of a few such cases. A bit like the law about failing to stop short. No matter the circumstances, it's up to the following driver to avoid collision.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.