Who's at fault? - apartment block prang

jonesyedxr6 · 07-05-2011, 12:53 PM

Hey Guys,

My girlfriends had a little prang this morning driving into her apartment block and I honestly don't know what to tell her.

She was driving into her apartment block from the road when a car that was reversing out of his park hit the side of her car, the car that was reversing out is just on the inside of the apartment blocks outside brink wall, the driver of the commodore reversing out straight away blamed her for 'zooming' in too fast and being a 17 year old girl, she straight away burst out in tears and i believe let him drill it into her from what I've gathered from the phone.

With the accident being contained within the apartment building what does this mean for insurance? Who's fault and what should her next move be - apart from calling her dad and him coming down and offering his 2cents.

ANY guidance/solution at all is welcome.

Her's a sketch i've quickly thrown together (the bottom of the picture is the road, so she is the car that is pointing upwards); sketch is drawn with cars at point of collision

Thanks.

Yellow_Festiva · 07-05-2011, 12:58 PM

I would say the reversing car from info you have given.

Tell your GF to not say anything further to the other party (assuming he also lives there?) as she may give him something to use against her.

Call Insurance...

kenz · 07-05-2011, 01:06 PM

I'd say hes to blame if he reversed into the side of her. If she had driven into him then it would be her fault.
If that was my carpark though I'd be reversing into it so I can see what's coming when I want to leave but thats just me, I like to do things the easy way

**redxm** · 07-05-2011, 01:03 PM

Insurance is covered by whatever company the at fault driver uses
Reversing vehicle is at fault
Same road rules apply in the car park as outside. It is called a 'road related area'

TURBOTAXI · 07-05-2011, 01:07 PM

I think an area accessible from the road (even private property) the same rules as the road apply. Reversing driver should have given way.

TURBOTAXI · 11-05-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

I think an area accessible from the road (even private property) the same rules as the road apply. Reversing driver should have given way.

I quoted my own post to make myself feel special. An because I tried to make the point early.

In an area that is accessible from the road (even private property) the road rules apply. I have had this discussion at work some time ago and can confirm that in NSW, your own driveway can meet the test of being accessible and having road rules apply. I have no doubt that a shared parking area would meet the criteria as accessible.

If you close a gate or something like that then your property is not accessible.

Jim Goose · 07-05-2011, 01:09 PM

Well logically the reversing car is at fault... but the road rules probably wont apply there being private property.

It will be up to the insurance companies to sort it out, but it wont hurt to seek advice from the boys in blue just to be sure.

Jim Goose · 07-05-2011, 01:11 PM

A road related are will only apply to a car park that is open to the invited public, ie like a pub, shopping center etc.... it wont apply to a private car park belonging to a building which isnt "open" to the public such as a residence...
Otherwise your driveway at home is considered a road related area, which it isnt.

WMD351 · 07-05-2011, 01:46 PM

I'd say it's his fault, but just hand it over to insurance and let them sort it out. They'll come to some sort of agreement between themselves like 60/40, 70/30 or some such thing but you don't have to worry about that.
Regardless of which one of them was going however fast, the only thing that can be proven is he hit her. Tell her to admit to nothing, if she already did it was only because she was in shock.
Hopefully he's got insurance.

rancidpunx · 07-05-2011, 01:25 PM

The reversing car is at faulty, he would have been able to see your girlfriend coming or at least the gate opening. However in some ways so is your GF as the situation could have been avoided. She should have been watching her surroundings and would have clearly seen the car with reverse lights coming as she is swinging into the car park. Something like a reversing car in all situations is worth a dab of brakes just to be sure he is watching. Being a commodore, if its an old style chances are his lights arnt working or extremely faded and worth a look as that will immediately award your GF an insurance win.

XR Martin · 07-05-2011, 01:28 PM

Just explain everything in detail to her insurance company, and let them sort it out. Thats what we pay them for. They'll work out who's at fault.
An insurance holder is actually not allowed to admit fault.

FPV+fteT3 · 07-05-2011, 01:38 PM

its a no brainer the reversing car is in the wrong.

jonesyedxr6 · 07-05-2011, 01:49 PM

Thankyou for your quick replies,

The first thing I told her was to stay in her apartment, which she has done so. Her parents have made the claim.

Thankyou all and case closed!

XRATE-UTERUS · 07-05-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesyedxr6

Thankyou for your quick replies,

The first thing I told her was to stay in her apartment, which she has done so. Her parents have made the claim.

Thankyou all and case closed!

so who won?

buggo · 07-05-2011, 03:59 PM

The guy reversing should have been looking to see what behind him. If she 'zoomed in' as he claims, she would have hit His side, not the other way around. If he was going a normal reversing speed, and he's hit her doors, he is at fault, no question.
If I were you, after it's all settled, give him back some of the 'drilling' he dished out uncalled for, I hate old blokes that think their always right,let him know what you think.

Dr Smith · 07-05-2011, 04:05 PM

If you provide the same diagram to your GF's insurance company and keep the description of the incident as brief and clear as possible then the "at fault driver" should be the reversing car as it as reversed into a "carriageway" and although not a road it is a driveway and due care to avoid any collision will be primarily the onus of the driver entering the driveway from a parking spot. I'm sure that the approximate speed of your GF's car at point of collision wasn't over 15km/hr or above any speed signage hanging on the property.. if you get my drift.

XRATE-UTERUS · 07-05-2011, 04:47 PM

because she was driving into the premises and he was allready in there doing his thing (reversing out) id say it was her fault for not giving way.

but if she was in driving along it would be the other persons fault, they say as soon as you reverse it is that persons fault on most cases.

JMHO

Jim Goose · 07-05-2011, 05:43 PM

One thing to find out if there are any sercurity cameras covering the entrance?
If its an apartment complex there usually is.

xisled · 08-05-2011, 01:48 PM

I see some really bad advice in this post. People need to learn road rules.

The person has reversed out of a car park and hit a car. Reversing party at fault. Nothing more nothing less. Does not matter if she was entering the car park or been driving down the car park aisle for 20 minutes. A car that is reversing must give way to all cars behind them. If 2 party's hit while reversing 50 50 fault.

Road rules apply to any car parks, being private or public, this also includes driveways.

No point contacting police, they only interested if someone drove off or got hurt.

Riksta · 07-05-2011, 06:36 PM

I was in a carpark accident where I was reversing out, and was practically out of my carpark, when somebody on the other side reversed into me (while I was still moving) - her back corner onto my back door.

Insurance deemed it "each bear own" - I had to pay my excess to get my car fixed, she had to do the same, even though everyone could see it was her who reversed into me.

GUTLES · 08-05-2011, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riksta

I was in a carpark accident where I was reversing out, and was practically out of my carpark, when somebody on the other side reversed into me (while I was still moving) - her back corner onto my back door.

Insurance deemed it "each bear own" - I had to pay my excess to get my car fixed, she had to do the same, even though everyone could see it was her who reversed into me.

That's how I thought it worked too. I was in my work ute in a tight Carpark last week & as I was reversing out a lady was driving out behind me & I tapped her, my work's insurance company said you pay for your own damage.

I was lucky my work ute has a tray on it so no damage to mine, but a small crease in her bonnet. If she had of been a bit nicer to me rather then abusing me for parking my car before talking to her & telling me its all my fault I might of offered her some $$$ towards her excess or repairing it.

gtxb67 · 08-05-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUTLES

That's how I thought it worked too. I was in my work ute in a tight Carpark last week & as I was reversing out a lady was driving out behind me & I tapped her, my work's insurance company said you pay for your own damage.

when both are reversing i believe both take blame. however if one is driving forward it is different. that is why i reverse into parking spots as often as i can

xisled · 08-05-2011, 01:50 PM

deleted.

shedcoupe · 07-05-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesyedxr6

.... she straight away burst out in tears and i believe let him drill it into her.....

What is the world coming to ???
She deployed a woman's nuclear weapon (formerly guaranteed to make it all the man's fault) and he still kept ranting ?
Have we bred a race of bulletproof super-men ? Very strange, this brave new world.

Yaw · 07-05-2011, 06:59 PM

The reversing car is 100% at fault.
The relevant legislation is this:
296 Driving a vehicle in reverse
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle unless the
driver can do so safely.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The driver of a vehicle must not reverse the vehicle further
than is reasonable in the circumstances.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
Source: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...ntOpRURR09.pdf

As the reversing party had an accident it is clear it was unsafe to be reversing.

gtxb67 · 08-05-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

The reversing car is 100% at fault.

i would have thought that to be the case if the original diagram is correct. even on private property, you are still governed by some rules - dangerous driving, alcohol etc. so i assume you would still have to obey the first road rule. you must drive in a way to avoid an accident. if the car was already in the driveway (and it must have been to be hit square in the side), then the reversing driver had to wait

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its private land... so the traffic law doesnt apply

you would still have to follow some rules, wouldn't you. certainly it is more grey on private property, but i would think you cannot just reverse into someone that is there (assuming the first diagram is correct). otherwise, insurance companies would not cover you, would they, because it cannot be open slather

Jim Goose · 08-05-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

i would have thought that to be the case if the original diagram is correct. even on private property, you are still governed by some rules - dangerous driving, alcohol etc. so i assume you would still have to obey the first road rule. you must drive in a way to avoid an accident. if the car was already in the driveway (and it must have been to be hit square in the side), then the reversing driver had to wait

you would still have to follow some rules, wouldn't you. certainly it is more grey on private property, but i would think you cannot just reverse into someone that is there (assuming the first diagram is correct). otherwise, insurance companies would not cover you, would they, because it cannot be open slather

Private property which isnt part of a road related area have no rules.
The Road Traffic Act only covers Roads and Road related areas (footpath, median strip, verge etc). Some "private" areas are covered, such as a public carpark, parks etc fall under the umbrella.

A private carpark doesnt in an apartment complex wont be covered as its not an "open" invitation to the public to enter the carpark, unlike a carpark at woolies for instance..

Otherwise you wouldnt be able to drive an unregistered car on your land...
or drive an illegally modified car on your land ....

Jim Goose · 08-05-2011, 01:19 PM

Its private land... so the traffic law doesnt apply

Yaw · 08-05-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its private land... so the traffic law doesnt apply

Yes they do, 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.

Jim,
I personally have had this type of claim go before a magistrate before where the other party was using your argument. The magistrate ruled in our (insurance company) favor and ordered the third party to pay our court costs and leagals also.

GT-E · 08-05-2011, 03:00 PM

Jim you are wrong
Any area for vehicles is governed by the road rules.
The common area in an appartment block applies to this.
The only area exempt is a fenced private property with the gates shut.