Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Who's at fault in minor carpark bingle?.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by foot69, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. One for the brains trust please.

    Car A is parked in a 90degree carpark, in the lines, carB turns into the empty carpark next to it as car A rear door is opening and collects the end of open door just in front of the mirror on the carB passenger front door, leaving a nice 12cm long by 1cm deep ding in car B passenger front door and some scratches on the left side mirror. CarA is a 15 year old ford that looks like its been in a few minors, car B is a 2010 Kia that looks like it was washed last week..
    Who's at fault?
    Car A passenger that opened the door?
    Car B driver for hitting a parked car?

  2. This is just my understanding based upon parallel parked cars and opening doors into traffic, where there it is always the parked car's responsibility/fault.

    Assuming it was a passenger inside the vehicle that was opening the passenger door of the Ford, it is the driver of the Ford's insurance liability. The Kia driver might cop a customary 10% charge for not missing the door that was opening. ie. Maybe 100% Ford fault, maybe 90:10 Ford fault.

    That's how I'd personally expect it to go, but I may well be wrong.
  3. Passenger in car A. There's a traffic offence (fine) for opening a car door without taking care or something similar.
  4. hard to say, but i agree with others as car A opened the door into car b.
    i.e. car b did not drive into the door. otherwise it woud have hit the front bumper
  5. http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/ARR_February_2009_final.pdf

    page 260:

    I'm going with car A. Damage on the side of the car says door was opened into car B.
  6. Car A as per above, there was another thread in another forum with the same situation. The insurers said car A was at fault.
  7. Yep, for insurance purposes, opening doors is one of the three automatic 'at faults'

    1) Striking the back of another vehicle, vehicle at back is at fault
    2) Any accident while reversing, reverser is at fault
    3) Anyone strikes your open door, door owner is at fault
  8. as others have said def car A for opening the door.

    My dad ripped off another door at the tip.. The other driver opened the door once the car had gone past but didn't allow for the trailer, the trailer completely took the door off. Dad was compensated for his repairs by the other insurance company.
  9. So moral of this story is, if you see someone you don't like getting out of their car, knock off their door and they will have to pay for everything. :demon:
  10. My wife had the exact same thing happen to her last year.

    It turns out they were insured with the same company as my wife and it seems the company wanted to cash in on it by getting two excesses paid, and therefore affecting both drivers ratings.....

    Once both parties had found this out we got together and got a quote for fixing both and split it 50/50 saving roughly $100 bucks (better off in our pocket and no change to rating)
  11. :bannanabutt:

  12. But it happened in a car park/Private property. Do the the road rules apply?
  13. Yes if entry to the car park is unimpeded (i.e. no boom gate) as it is considered a 'road related area'.
  14. I'd think it's not really as straightforwad as this. I don't think there's any doubt that if somebody is parked parallel to a main road and opens their door they'd be at fault - after all if you are driving straight down the road you should reasonably expect that nobody's going to jump out at you. But in a carpark? I think there is a responsibility on everyone to expect the unexpected. while you should clearly take care exiting your car, you should be taking reasonable care whilest manoevering too, especially as good visibility is not guaranteed. what would have happened if a toddler was standing beside the car?

    My verdict: 50/50
  15. Where does the OP mention anything about a toddler? So now it's 50/50 at fault? Someone can't be bothered twisting their head a couple of degrees before opening the door just as you're trying to pull into the park beside them and they hit your vehicle and everyone shares the blame? ](*,)

    If we extrapolated this "can somebody please think of the children" attitude and applied it to the suburban road then nobody would be driving for fear of hitting a kid chasing a ball onto the street! This has been explicitly mentioned in case law (somewhere, can't be bothered to look it up) and as long as you're taking care reasonable care in the circumstances then you can't be held liable for the unpredictable acts of others.

    Car A door opener gets a fine/caution. The imaginary toddler lives another day.
  16. I was thinking a similar thing, but then took some time to read through the ARR to make sure that this particular clause didn't just apply to roads. It doesn't, it applies to road related areas.

    Of course civil decision don't have to follow legislative ones, but they rarely don't.
  17. I agree with your point that everyone should expect the unexpected. Most accidents can usually be avoided by the not at fault party. We bikers know this more then anyone if you look at how much scrutany is given to those in accidents on this forum. But still as far as insurance and law goes noone is going to be held accountable for not expecting the unexpected. Car A 100% even though car B could have avoided the collision.
  18. 'reasonable care' is the point. and how can someone opening a door in a carpark be classed as 'unpredictable'
  19. Thanks for the help all, its appreciated.
    I spoke to the parents of the 9 year old that opened the door, she's fine but has a bruised leg. She says she had CAR A's door open and was sitting in the car ready to get out when car B pulled into the car park and collected the door.
    Her parents rang their insurance company and have been told that the car that hit the parked car is at fault.
    BTW, the owners of the 9 year old are not the owners or drivers of either car involved, but have offered to cover the cost of repairs if neccesary.