Was I at fault here? (yet another car accident thread)

[nageov3t]

so, I'm driving home the other day and approach a point in the road where a car on my side of the street is double parked and there's a long line of cars on the other side waiting for the light to change. me and the double parked car are the only cars on my side, and there's about half a car's length between me and him.

because I can't go around the double-parked car until opposing traffic clears, and because opposing traffic won't be clearing any time soon, I space out a little and get distracted by a cool looking house on the other side of the street (note: my foot is on the brake this whole time).

next thing I know, I'm shocked back from my day dreaming by a crash because that double parked car just reversed into me.

we get out of our cars, yell at each other, but ultimately there was no damage done to either of our cars so we just walked away. he seemed really insistent that I should have seen him going in reverse and backed up myself (which, granted, I would have done if I'd been paying attention), but I feel like he can't just rely on that assumption before hitting the gas. if he wanted to reverse and I wasn't moving, he should have beeped his horn, waved his arm, gotten out of his car to yell at me, etc.

and if he didn't see my 3000-pound car, who's to say he would have seen a 60-pound kid running across the street?

 

[chimaxi83]

You paying attention would have alerted you to incoming dumbass, but dumbass needs to look where they're going. Don't see how it would have been your fault. Did you stop an inch off his bumper or something?

Also, 3 ton car? What kind of yacht are you driving?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Both at fault.

 

[Mai72]

I believe he was in the wrong because he hit you first. You were stationary. He should have looked in his rear view mirror.

His fault and if you two went to court he would have been liable for physical and emotional damages.

 

[nageov3t]

You paying attention would have alerted you to incoming dumbass, but dumbass needs to look where they're going. Don't see how it would have been your fault. Did you stop an inch off his bumper or something?

it was about half a car length between us when I stopped... enough room for me to swing around and continue down the street once oncoming traffic cleared.

Also, 3 ton car? What kind of yacht are you driving?

er, 1.5-ish tons? I'm tired and yet again wasn't paying attention...

 

[KeithTalent]

Double fault, 15-love.

KT

 

[SlitheryDee]

I don't know what the law would say, but I blame him completely. My driving philosophy is that any time you place yourself in the position where you have to depend on someone else to do something in order to avoid an accident, you're in the wrong. That means you never go anywhere until you see with your own eyes that the way is clear. You don't assume that you can go because the way "should" be clear. You don't keep driving at someone because they "should" move. You verify that the way "is" clear or that they "have" moved before you do anything. On the road your own actions are all you can really control. That's enough to avoid 99.9% of accidents if you fully own up to that and drive like it's true though. He didn't have to depend on you to back up in order to avoid crashing into you. He was presumably in full control of his own car and could have stopped at any time. He is to blame.

 

[jad1097]

You should have spit in his face and told him he is an ass for double parking and backing up into you.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I answered that loki was at fault just because.

But if OP is telling truth, then it sounds like he was a dipshit who didn't look where he was going. There are always legal twists and turns, but if you're stationary and somebody hits you, it's usually their fault.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I don't know what the law would say, but I blame him completely. My driving philosophy is that any time you place yourself in the position where you have to depend on someone else to do something in order to avoid an accident, you're in the wrong. He didn't have to depend on you to back up in order to avoid crashing into you. He was presumably in full control of his own car and could have stopped at any time. He is to blame.

Ya, you could have avoided the accident but it's 100% his fault. Why would he keep backing up anyway if he could plainly see you hadn't moved? Total dumbass.

 

[BoomerD]

If he backed into you...be prepared for "He rear ended me!" claim by the other driver.

 

[slag]

He backed into you.

Almost always 100% the fault of the person backing up. He ran into you, not the other way around.

 

[Markbnj]

He backed into you.

Almost always 100% the fault of the person backing up. He ran into you, not the other way around.

This. You were stopped. Doesn't really matter where you were stopped. The operator of the moving vehicle has a responsibility not to hit you.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The logic in fault for rear end collisions:
1. Both cars traveling forward: Rear driver.
2. Both cars traveling backwards: Front driver.
3. One car stationary: Non-stationary driver.
4. One car moving forward, one backward: Whoever didn't have the right of way. Ex. Backing out of a parking spot, you do not have the right of way.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

If he backed into you...be prepared for "He rear ended me!" claim by the other driver.

That is why it is a good idea to get a dash can. Even a 50 dollar G1W 1080p camera can save you from false claims.

Loki, you were both at fault, but leaning more fault to dumbass that was backing up. Good thing there was no damage.