Car Accident Question

[bluefish81]

If it happened in the parking lot then chances are good that even though driver B is technically at fault, both people will be ruled "at-fault" 50% or thereabouts and A and B or their respective insurance companies will pay for their damages. If it wasn't on private property, i.e. not a parking lot, but a street that is adjoins the complex, then B's at fault and B or their insurance gets to pay for everything. But if you're in a no-fault state then the rules are really weird and even when you're not at fault, your insurance company still pays if the damages are below a certain amount (like $2500). Isn't FL a no-fault state? Or they were thinking of getting rid of it, and decided not to maybe? I can't keep up with FL's insurance rules and thankfully I don't have to follow them religiously anymore.

Good thing no one was hurt smiley21! And I'm glad that the other driver is willing to pay for the damages.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

Atleast it was a car you backed into and not a person. I guarantee you'd be paying more than 400 bucks

Haha...very funny.

[smiley21]

I bumped this thread because something interesting happened today. Well this guy (that I had the accident with) and I still live in the same complex. We are two buildings apart. Anyway, he and I never saw each other since that whole incident back in October. Well, we finally talked again yesterday. Then today he asked me out. So we are going out on Wednesday. LOL. I never thought I would ever want to go out with this guy who made me so mad 6 months ago. Now, he seems a lot cuter.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by smiley21

I bumped this thread because something interesting happened today. Well this guy (that I had the accident with) and I still live in the same complex. We are two buildings apart. Anyway, he and I never saw each other since that whole incident back in October. Well, we finally talked again yesterday. Then today he asked me out. So we are going out on Wednesday. LOL. I never thought I would ever want to go out with this guy who made me so mad 6 months ago. Now, he seems a lot cuter.

Okay, that is funny.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by smiley21

I bumped this thread because something interesting happened today. Well this guy (that I had the accident with) and I still live in the same complex. We are two buildings apart. Anyway, he and I never saw each other since that whole incident back in October. Well, we finally talked again yesterday. Then today he asked me out. So we are going out on Wednesday. LOL. I never thought I would ever want to go out with this guy who made me so mad 6 months ago. Now, he seems a lot cuter.

If life were a romantic comedy, you would be destined to get married. Keep us posted.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Technically, yeah, Driver B is at fault. However, I've got to say, in this world of overly long pickups and SUVs that those of us in regular ole cars can't see around these vehicles to determine whether it is clear or not and it's very frustrating and dangerous. I usually inch out verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly and hope that people stop when they see me backing out because I sure can't see anything until I'm past the cab of that pickup.

I just want to second this.

As someone who drove a sedan for 12 years in the land of full sized trucks and SUVs, it was almost always impossible to see as I was backing out of a parking space. I can't even count the number of cars that would go sailing through the parking lot and curse at me as I ever-so-cautiosly tried to (blindly) back out.

People. Please be aware that just because you are up high in your Tahoe and can see into the next county does not mean that I can in my standard, miles-per-gallon-friendly sedan. I promise to back out very slowly- thus giving ample warning- if you will slow down a bit in the parking lots and be patient with us in low cars.

See? We *can* all get along.

Thanks. Off the soap box now.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by smiley21

I bumped this thread because something interesting happened today. Well this guy (that I had the accident with) and I still live in the same complex. We are two buildings apart. Anyway, he and I never saw each other since that whole incident back in October. Well, we finally talked again yesterday. Then today he asked me out. So we are going out on Wednesday. LOL. I never thought I would ever want to go out with this guy who made me so mad 6 months ago. Now, he seems a lot cuter.

I hope you got your money first

[smiley21]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I hope you got your money first

LOL. I got that well in advance.

[smiley21]

We met for dinner tonight and it was fun. We talked about the accident a little and we just laughed about it. We want to get together again, so we will see what happens.

[EE-BO]

I am renting a semi-detached apartment and my next-door neighbor and I both have attached immediately adjacent garages which means zero visibility for most of the backing out part.

I have a Chevy Tahoe with lots of battle scars and he has a Lotus that he washes at least once a week and treats like his child.

Somehow, I don't think he will ever bump into me

[EE-BO]

PS- I agree that car B is at fault, but even though I am a guy I have to admit I think how this situation has evolved is pretty cool. It is good you can be cool about all this- me being the vindictive type I can't go there. And if a good thing comes of it in your personal life, then screw the car!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Either way, I'm paying bc I don't want her to file with my insurance.

I'm with you on that! My insurance deductible is $1,000 because I want the cheapest premium possible and I intend on paying out of pocket for small expenses.

[AKA_Monet]

Driver B's fault...

Long time ago, I got into a situation like that. I don't know which one I was--A & B.

[SAEalumnus]

Florida's original no-fault law expired October 1, 2007, but the state's legislature enacted a new no-fault law effective January 1, 2008. No-fault systems basically mean that each person's injuries and damages are paid for through their own insurance policies, and there are usually restrictions on under what circumstances, if any, one can sue the other party.

I'm not sure about Florida, but at least in California the only distinction about whether or not the accident occurred on private vs. public property is that the state's Vehicle Code only applies on public roadways. That being said, any accident on private property will still be evaluated with the same general guidelines, namely who had the right of way, who had the last clear chance to avoid the collision, did either party act as would any reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, etc.

Generally speaking, if you impede someone else's right of way, you're going to be principally at fault ('proximate cause'). Unless it can be shown that the right-of-way driver was speeding and/or inattentive, or otherwise breached a duty owed to you under the Vehicle Code, you're usually going to get stuck with 100% of the liability. The cases where parking lot accidents are judged 50/50 are typically those when both parties are reversing at more or less the same time from opposing parking spaces, or some other case when neither party had a clear right of way. Additionally, just because any given insurance company says any given party is x% at fault, doesn't necessarily mean it's so. Insurance companies have a contractual obligation to defend their insureds and are by virtue of that obligation biased in favor of their policy holder. In a lot of cases liability won't get resolved until the matter reaches either an arbitrator or a court room.

In the case of the OP, driver B was 100% at fault based on driver A having the right of way and driver B having a greater duty to yield when reversing from a parking space, and on the point of impact between the two vehicles, which established that driver A had almost completely passed behind driver B by the time impact occurred (indicating inattention on driver B's part). Unsafe speed on driver A's part is ruled out based on the report of driver A proceeding at a 'normal' speed for the parking lot. Inattention on driver A's part is also ruled out based on the point of impact; it would be unreasonable for driver A to be expected to know a vehicle they'd almost completely passed was going to back into them. On that note, reverse lights being on doesn't give driver B the right to back up; the purpose is only to notify other motorists of their intent. The same is true of turn signals and lane changes. Putting your blinker on doesn't give you the right to change lanes.

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

Florida's original no-fault law expired October 1, 2007, but the state's legislature enacted a new no-fault law effective January 1, 2008. No-fault systems basically mean that each person's injuries and damages are paid for through their own insurance policies, and there are usually restrictions on under what circumstances, if any, one can sue the other party.

I'm not sure about Florida, but at least in California the only distinction about whether or not the accident occurred on private vs. public property is that the state's Vehicle Code only applies on public roadways. That being said, any accident on private property will still be evaluated with the same general guidelines, namely who had the right of way, who had the last clear chance to avoid the collision, did either party act as would any reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, etc.

Generally speaking, if you impede someone else's right of way, you're going to be principally at fault ('proximate cause'). Unless it can be shown that the right-of-way driver was speeding and/or inattentive, or otherwise breached a duty owed to you under the Vehicle Code, you're usually going to get stuck with 100% of the liability. The cases where parking lot accidents are judged 50/50 are typically those when both parties are reversing at more or less the same time from opposing parking spaces, or some other case when neither party had a clear right of way. Additionally, just because any given insurance company says any given party is x% at fault, doesn't necessarily mean it's so. Insurance companies have a contractual obligation to defend their insureds and are by virtue of that obligation biased in favor of their policy holder. In a lot of cases liability won't get resolved until the matter reaches either an arbitrator or a court room.

In the case of the OP, driver B was 100% at fault based on driver A having the right of way and driver B having a greater duty to yield when reversing from a parking space, and on the point of impact between the two vehicles, which established that driver A had almost completely passed behind driver B by the time impact occurred (indicating inattention on driver B's part). Unsafe speed on driver A's part is ruled out based on the report of driver A proceeding at a 'normal' speed for the parking lot. Inattention on driver A's part is also ruled out based on the point of impact; it would be unreasonable for driver A to be expected to know a vehicle they'd almost completely passed was going to back into them. On that note, reverse lights being on doesn't give driver B the right to back up; the purpose is only to notify other motorists of their intent. The same is true of turn signals and lane changes. Putting your blinker on doesn't give you the right to change lanes.

Are/Were you a claims examiner??? I had flash backs to my years in claims. When this thread first started all I could think "Which is my driver?" That always made the difference about what points to argue or down play.