Accident in carpark
Had an accident last week in a car park. I just started to reverse and a car came down from the upper level and came into the back of my car. As he came down, he didnt stop at the give way to see i was reversing and we collided. Whose fault is it?
No one admitted liability at the scene and we went our way after exchanging details.
some will say private property, but we are only hearing your side of the story, but i think the other driver is at fault, going too fast to stop in the area he/she could see, wasnt driving to conditions/poor lighting, do you think they have cctv footage of this accident
Not sure about CCTV but don't think so in that party of the car park. He was also driving in the Car park without his headlights on. Considering its a covered car park It was fairly dark.
If I had just started to reverse would it be his fault for not stopping at the give way and driving without his lights?
some would say the other driver is guilty of without due care and attention, i found this after doing a google search
Driving without due care and attention
Driving without due care and attention is an offence in accordance with Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The description of the offence according to the legislation is that a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.
In order for you to be convicted of this offence, the Prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were the person driving a motor vehicle and that at the time of the alleged offence you were driving on a public road or other public place. (Bear in mind a public place is described as anything to which the public have unrestricted access for example a supermarket car park) without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users.
The main question must be what amounts to what driving due care and attention. There is no statutory description and what this phrase means. Each case is decided on its individual facts. The general principal is that the Prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances.
This is an objective test. That means that in each individual case the Court must assess whether or not in the circumstances you drove in a manner that a reasonable driver would have driven. If the Court reaches the conclusion that, the standard of your driving fell below that of a reasonable driver then you will be convicted.
No doubt with today's insurance claims climate, they will try and go for a 50/50, which would be the wrong decision, good luck.
Under traffic law, there is no such thing as private prperty on car parks. Any driver is still liable for damage they cause, and driving offences apply.
The incidence of threads about car park collisions emphasizes just how bad drivers are. Every driver should be fully aware of, and considerste to, the fact that this is a place where vehicle manoeuvring and reversing is very frequent. There are also people on foot, going to and from vehicles, regularly with young children in tow. With the job of carrying shopping,a young child may not always be fully under control, but it is still the responsibility of drivers to apply care towards all walking persons, as well as takng care not to collide with other vehicles. Most shopping car parks have a speed limit of either 5mph or 10mph. These limits are not put in place just for the fun of it, and should be obeyed. Many drivers drive around these car parks at speeds of 20mph plus. If they hit someone, and it can be reliably witnessed that they were substantially exceeding the applied limit, the police would be involved if an injury took place, and the driver would face prosecution under road trafic law.