Reversing accidents.

Page 1 / 2
don_logan, Jun 18, 8:25pm
I've been told that if a car reverses into a stationary vehicle causing damage, then liability for the accident should be on the car reversing!. Does anyone know what legislation covers this, or where to find it online!
v8_mopar, Jun 18, 8:28pm
There's more to it than that!

It would be looked at case by case like all accidents
v8_mopar, Jun 18, 8:32pm
I once pulled into a shopping car park and a guy was backing over the entrance from yellow lines to a car park on the side of the road. He didn't see me and I seen what he was doing to late. It was a hard battle to get his insurance to cover the crash but won in the end.
don_logan, Jun 18, 8:40pm
Sure, I guess this is why I am asking. What would be the legislation you would use or quote in that situation!
v8_mopar, Jun 18, 8:45pm
Its was about 20 years ago but do remember having to point out he was was going the wrong way on that side of the street and I had to stand my ground and not back down. I strongly felt I was in the right and doing the norm and he was not. Show no doubt over how it all paned out.

Anyway whats your story :)
don_logan, Jun 18, 8:50pm
Well, not my story. I know someone, who was reversed into. She was stationary and blowing the car horn as could see what was going to happen, but got reversed into in a car park. Its going to go to disputes. I see two issues in her favor. 1. She was staionary at the time. so its a moving car hitting a staionary car. and 2. The other car was reversing at the time. But I was looking online for any kinda of reference to back this up, and drawing a blank.
don_logan, Jun 18, 8:53pm
I see countless articles and old forums online backing this up. But why is what I would like to know!
edangus, Jun 18, 8:56pm
Normally, the moving vehicle is at fault.unless, stationary vehicle is parked illegally, no wof, no reg, unlicensed driver or wrong licensed driver.
don_logan, Jun 18, 8:59pm
Yes, but why!
edangus, Jun 18, 9:06pm
Because we are supposed to be looking where we are going!
I have been on both ends of this. I have been hit while parked 3 times, only one tried to get away with it. Went to court, he lost.
The lady i drove over.well I think she may have got a new car.she wasn't stationary though, she just misjudged the width of her car and my towbar.bad move. I was reversing soo.I admitted liability.
don_logan, Jun 18, 9:08pm
Yeah, I hear what your saying, and dont disagree. thanks :-)
tonyrockyhorror, Jun 18, 9:08pm
None of those things you think absolve the driver of responsibility for driving like a blind twit actually do unless they're material.
fryan1962, Jun 18, 9:10pm
Stationary car car not have accident.it can cause accident
tonyrockyhorror, Jun 18, 9:13pm
Example:
No WOF. alone, not material. With a fault that contributes to the crash despite having a 'current' WoF. possibly material depending on degree of contributing factor and likelyhood of a reasonable person being aware of the fault.

Unlicensed motorvehicle. never material.

Learner licence holder unaccompanied. perhaps material depending on specific nature of crash.
tonyrockyhorror, Jun 18, 9:13pm
It can only cause a crash if it moves. Just like a letterbox.
zak410, Jun 18, 9:14pm
what if he reverse into a tree! is that the tree's fault !
or a toddler !
edangus, Jun 18, 9:14pm
Agreed. Though when its an illegally parked vehicle. they are asking for it.

I learnt that the hard way. never parked the wrong way on a street again.
ceebee2, Jun 19, 4:32am
Most insurance comapanys I know if not all will always favour the stationary vehicle being reversed into not the reversing one. Police mates of mine said they will always cite the reversing vehicle provided there are no extenuating circumstances that could sway their decision.
casper35, Jun 19, 4:51am
If you are reversing and you hit someone/thing you are in the wrong.Been there been charged.
fryan1962, Jun 19, 5:30am
that is what I said
exception is if letter box is put in the middle of motorway,While stationarycould cause accident
pauldw, Jun 19, 5:38am
If you've just driven a small car into a park that someone else is reversing into you probably deserve to get hit regardless :)
i-n-horz, Jun 19, 6:01am
If it's going to disputes & small claims make sure you have photographs from several angles of where the incident/accident took place.a large diagram showing vehicle position and movements before & after the incident/accident.time of day, weather conditions, visibility and volume of traffic in the vicinity also clear photographs showing the resulting damage.the more detailed the better.
Some old & rich codger in a Jag tried to do me once after glancing off the side of my truck in Remuera.
Came to the courts in his fancy digs, walking cane and 6-1/2ft tall man assistant and the old dude knew the judge too, they politely exchanged good mornings on a first name basis.I'm screwed was my first thought especially being at the tender age of 21 and looking like a gutter rat.
But I came prepared with all the above mentioned and kick the old coot to the curb.*BOOM*.how you like me now.yeh ;)
He was not happy.lol.
rpvr, Jun 19, 6:12am
I have worked in insurance, and the moving vehicle is always at fault. Parking illegally, no wof etc, are offences in themselves, but have no bearing on the accident. Just because a vehicle is not fully legal doesn't give another driver the right to hit it! The problem arises in proving who did what.if the stationary car has frontal damage and the reversing car has rear damage as you would expect, then it's difficult to prove which vehicle was moving, if there were no witnesses and it's one driver's word against the other.
mrfxit, Jun 19, 7:10am
EXACTLY . it's the "mechanics'" of the accident = Who was moving at the time.
Stationary vehicles/ tree's/ houses etc don't normally move.
Interestingly enough, if 1 of the above DO move & cause an accident, then you CAN claim against the owner (or god)
trogedon, Jun 19, 10:20am
Our car got reversed into two months ago. The woman (we know her) went to my wife (away from car at the time) and admitted fault. Door replaced painted etc. All happy. The woman admitted its the forth time she's done it. She's cronically obese so possibly not able to look properly.