Dumb woman reversed into dads car (saying shared fault)

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by ZA-289

its basically private property .

Don't fall into that trap. It's not private property. It's a public access road, which basically means your car must be registered/roadworthy and you must be licenced to drive in there. (That's in a nutshell, without going into the rest of the dribble)

The question at hand. Basically, you will have to pay your excess to have the repairs done. If there is no witnesses, no footage or anything like that, it's a he said, she said scenario. She could say you hit her, you could say she hit you, when it comes to the crunch. There is no way looking at the damage caused to a car to determine who is at fault, in the eyes of the insurance assessors, or the police.

Unfotunately, that's the way it is. It sucks, but what else can you do?

[Yaw]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

i am pretty sure car parks fall under various, for lack of a better word, juristictions and one would need to make enquiries with the local council as to it's status.

i have also heard in cases similar to this, for one party to sue the other party before the other party sues them. this could be a job for a traffic lawyer.

No its a road related area.

13 What is a road-related area
(1) A road-related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public
and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by,
the public for parking vehicles.

Source:
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...tOpRUDLR10.pdf

[Jastel]

Without witnesses it's 50-50

Think yourself lucky she HAS insurance to claim on

Wait till you get a car written off by an underage/drunk driver and see how you feel.

Then 3 days later the car that hit you is sold for $50 at an auction so no hope of civil recovery either.

[388cube_edxr8]

Even an admission of guilt might not help.

My AU ute was recently hit in the front left guard by a bloke in a Commodore. It bent the guard, cracked the headlight, ripped off the bumper, knocked out the wheel alignment, bent the radiator support and cracked the radiator.

He was an honest bloke, rang his insurer and admitted fault, so it should all be covered right? Wrong.

The bloke from the insurance agency has decided, based on some top-down photos from the panel beater, that there is no way that an impact in that corner could have bent the radiator support, cracked the radiator, or affected the wheel alignment (despite there being rubber from his tyre on my wheel). All that is covered is the panel damage. He reckons I must have hit something else. I thought I would have noticed if I had hit something hard enough to do all that damage, but apparently not.

Moral of the story is, insurance companies are assholes, and there is SFA you can do about it.

[LTDHO]

I love these threads.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by Jastel

Without witnesses it's 50-50

Think yourself lucky she HAS insurance to claim on

Wait till you get a car written off by an underage/drunk driver and see how you feel.

Then 3 days later the car that hit you is sold for $50 at an auction so no hope of civil recovery either.

Why does that matter? If that happens, you pay YOUR excess to YOUR insurance company and they can chase the underage/drunk driver releasing the dogs with bees in there mouths so that when they bark they shoot bees at him.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

I love these threads.

I agree.
The more this goes on the more it goes on... and on.... and on..... and on.....
As my Nan used to say before she shed her mortal coil; "What can't be cured must be endured". Move on.

[TS50]

Originally Posted by davway

When both cars are reversing, BOTH are at fault - even if one car stops to avoid the collision.
Thats the way it is whether you like it or not.

Now if your dad was still in his park, hadnt moved at all and she reversed into him, then she is at fault.
Since this didnt happen, your both at fault.

Thats right
If both cars are in reverse, even if one is not moving, blame is with both vehicles

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Why does that matter? If that happens, you pay YOUR excess to YOUR insurance company and they can chase the underage/drunk driver releasing the dogs with bees in their mouths so that when they bark they shoot bees at him.

Exactly - that's why we have comprehensive insurance!!!!

(bees...... )

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by 388cube_edxr8

Moral of the story is, insurance companies are assholes, and there is SFA you can do about it.

Exactly! Where are all the guys who post away when someone has an accident and has no insurance?

Insurance doesn't always help you when you need it!

[Auturbo6]

Mate, on the road or in a carpark WE need to take responsibility for our actions. My quotation for driving is, dodging the D#$#heads. It appears to me that if your father saw the stupidity unfold, he should have hit drive and gone back into the spot. Not stay in position and windge and moan about a situation that could have been avoided. My grain of salt, later.......

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by falcontonner

if he was stationary when it happened then its the womans fault as whoever is reversing its their fault. go down the cop shop and they will tell you that. even make a statement and give that to your insurance company. i think your suppose to have one anyway if its more than 2 grand damage i think...

what he said ^^^^^

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

Tell your insurance company to do their bloody job and make sure your Dad is fully compensated.

what he said ^^^^

[Jastel]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Why does that matter? If that happens, you pay YOUR excess to YOUR insurance company and they can chase the underage/drunk driver releasing the dogs with bees in there mouths so that when they bark they shoot bees at him.

Why should I be out an excess??

It matters because they cant recover anything either and keep putting excesses and premiums up. They dont bother to chase them.

The drunk driver gets another minor suspended sentence which he pays no attention to and does the same thing the next week to another person

Cycle starts again....

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by Jastel

Why should I be out an excess??

It matters because they cant recover anything either and keep putting excesses and premiums up. They dont bother to chase them.

The drunk driver gets another minor suspended sentence which he pays no attention to and does the same thing the next week to another person

Cycle starts again....

Well you're talking about justice and insurance companies don't sell that, you need to look elsewhere.

Sorry, if you aren't at fault and can name the other driver you shouldn't have to pay an excess. Our premiums go up for a whole range of reasons, If you are crying because the insurance company is losing out then you are the only one.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

Just cop it on the chin and move on. For the cost of the excess it's not worth the stress.

I rear ended a woman who slammed on her brakes at 60 km/h to perform an illegal u turn at a set of traffic lights on a major intersection. I had witnesses all in my favour, she even admitted fault to the police.

I was still fined for neg driving "failing to maintain safe stopping distance" She got off with a finger waived at her by the cops, and i was still found at fault by my insurance company. In the end no matter how much i screamed and yelled for a $600 excess it wasn't worth all the stress.

be thankful it wasn't a kid that caused her to slam on her brakes and you subsequently slammed her into that kid. Too close is too close, been there done that.

Re car parks. In the past when I've had issues on a publicly accessible roadway (its actually a long driveway) on private property, the police have said its a civil matter. Has the law changed in the last 10 years?

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Auturbo6

Mate, on the road or in a carpark WE need to take responsibility for our actions. My quotation for driving is, dodging the D#$#heads. It appears to me that if your father saw the stupidity unfold, he should have hit drive and gone back into the spot. Not stay in position and windge and moan about a situation that could have been avoided. My grain of salt, later.......

It's not winging and moaning it's fighting not to be taken advantage of these *******, there is clear fault in this situation.
It's a tight carpark, you can't reverse out completely in one motion, when he reversed out of the park she started to reverse, so he put the car in drive to get on the road before she hit him ( but didn't have enough angle to go either on the road or back in the park, so he was stuck when she hit him and technically he was in drive.

Would that help our case at all?

[Kryton]

Your both at fault, how many different ways do you want to hear the same the same thing.
They were BOTH reversing and are BOTH at fault.
Even the insurer has told you the same thing.

And no, it wont help your case either.
Just sounds like the story is being changed to suit yourselves and to be clear of any fault - and thats what the insurers are going to think too.
No one can prove that he was trying to drive into the car park either.
End of the day, both parties are at fault.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by AWD Chaser

Unless there are witnesses, its gonna be shared fault... a few threads on it, and happend to my Bro-in-law too...

To them, without witnesses, it's just hearsay for whos at fault...

Really sux that you have to pay for someone elses stupidity.... but its just the way it is

UNFORTUNATELY !!! what he said ^^^^^^^^

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by Auturbo6

Mate, on the road or in a carpark WE need to take responsibility for our actions. My quotation for driving is, dodging the D#$#heads. It appears to me that if your father saw the stupidity unfold, he should have hit drive and gone back into the spot. Not stay in position and windge and moan about a situation that could have been avoided. My grain of salt, later.......

Reminds of the Brake Check Thread. Two words. Apple and Tree

I'm just kidding.

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Re car parks. In the past when I've had issues on a publicly accessible roadway (its actually a long driveway) on private property, the police have said its a civil matter. Has the law changed in the last 10 years?

A shopping centre carpark is part of the road. It's been that way for many many years. If you're unlicenced, or drive an unregistered car in a shopping centre, and your caught, you're stuffed. (That's an example) It's not private property. However in this case, there is no way to prove who was at fault, so unfortunately the OP is out of pocket, which ever way you look at it

[Jastel]

Originally Posted by ken2903

Well you're talking about justice and insurance companies don't sell that, you need to look elsewhere.

Sorry, if you aren't at fault and can name the other driver you shouldn't have to pay an excess. Our premiums go up for a whole range of reasons, If you are crying because the insurance company is losing out then you are the only one.

I cannot see how you got that from what I typed?????

Your right I shouldn't - but you do!

Where do I cry for insurance companies???
I complained about them....