Who's To Blame.

[corrofell]

The scene is a car park . Owner 1 is returning to car to leave carpark, sees another car arriving and parking in the bay behind owner1's car. Owner 2 parks and gets a wheelchair out of boot. Owner 1 decides to reverse out of bay whilst owner 2 is putting up wheelchair. Owner 1 reverses back slowly and hits owner 2's car. When owner 1 gets out to see what happened owner 2's car is only partly in the parking bay and is on an diagonal angle.
owner 2 says owner 1's at fault as owner 1 hit the back of owner 2's car. Owner 1 is not so sure as owner 2's car was not properly parked. When this was mentioned to owner 2. owner 2 said they had to leave room to get disabled person out of car.

[shoota]

Owner 1.
If a moving vehicle hits a stationary vehicle the mover is almost always at fault.

[black_cat51]

it's absolutely owner 1's fault

[EcclesCake]

Irrespective of how the other car was parked it was stationary and hit by the other car.

Not much for discussion as far as I can see.

[Buenchico]

If you're reversing your vehicle you always need to ensure that there's nothing behind you (such as a small child!). Owner 1 is at fault.

[Baldric]

The driver of the moving car!

[woofgang]

yup, the driver of the moving car.

[Canary42]

Owner 1.

[pixie373]

Agree- Owner 1 is at fault.

[bhg481]

I am completely unaware of any law which states that you are allowed to bump into a car which has parked badly.

[Svejk]

lol^. pity though, sometimes.

[Svejk]

I don't think corrofill got the answer he/she wanted. lol.

[chas2008]

my next door neighbour reversed into a parked car outside his house,tried to claim through his own insurance against the owner of the parked car even got the police involved, neither wanted to know.
As said if you hit a stationary vehicle its your fault for not looking, also again as said it could of been a child not a car...

[Dodger666]

I don't understand why owner 1 chose to reverse knowing owner 2's car was parking behind his/her car. Why didn't he/she just drive out forwards? I assume owner 1 didn't bother to look in the rear view mirrors too.

[rockyracoon]

I agree with the others, owner 1 is at fault.

[Old_Geezer]

Interesting Chas. A child can well be small enough not to be seen by anything the driver could look at from the drivers' seat. So in the case of an accident it seems to me that the driver could not have reasonably avoided the accident: are they then still responsible for something they could not reasonably have prevented ?

[joko]

you cannot just drive into a space assuming that its empty - you must be sure.
you should have been looking backwards into the space - or lack of - you were heading for ... as it is you must have guessed!

as they said, they hadnt yet finished parking as they had to get the wheelchair out. they are entitled to stop their car to exit it.

as someone else said - it wouldnt matter if they were parked in a preposterous manner - you are still not allowed to drive into them

driver one is 100% at fault

[Fudiot]

My first thought is.... if anything changes to the space that #1 will be reversing into they need to double check, even if it means getting out of the car and looking.... but perhaps #2 should have been more aware of their surroundings such as engine noise from other vehicle starting and moving.... I would say 50/50.