[Wires]

Originally Posted by Billfitz

The video doesn't lie. You can hear when the Nissan hits the door, ans see the camera shake as well. If ever there was an open and shut case this would be it.

Not sure how you can say "cut and dry". If she flips the door out in front of the car, it will get clipped.

Up here, parking lots are 50/50 rule since they are private property.

[chowser51]

Depends on location.

From an insurance hotline website

A moving driver hits a legally parked car. This is the most common parking lot accident, because it includes dinging your neighbour’s car while opening your door and similar mishaps. The moving driver will be judged to be at fault.


Back in high school (the 80s) during driver’s ed, my instructor smacked my head when I was cutting through parking spots and said never do that. Lol

[chiefneil]

Originally Posted by Elvisfan

So if the Nissan did nothing illegal, why is it their fault?

You can do plenty of stupid stuff that isn’t illegal but if it causes an accident then you can be deemed at fault and liable for damages.

[Pauloxxi]

Originally Posted by Elvisfan

So if the Nissan did nothing illegal, why is it their fault?

Because Nissan was negligent crossing over parking spots, in inadequate speed and dangerously close to other vehicles.

[rak299]

My experience has been that in parking lot incidents, each driver fixes his own car

[Jk440i]

Knew someone who experienced the same thing as OP.

Went through insurance, and moving car was at fault and paid out.

[GreenF30N26]

Not sure how the UK rules work but in Ontario Canada doesn't matter who is at fault both insurance companies pay out their own clients damages and because you were involved whether at fault or not it goes against your record as an accident. It's called no fault insurance. https://www.thinkinsure.ca/insurance...insurance.html

That truly sucks OP the Nissan shouldn't have been driven through the parking lot like that and easy enough to open a door at the wrong time. Interesting to think if your country drove on the right side of the road that door would not have been opened...

[Gen13 F36]

Originally Posted by GreenF30N26

Not sure how the UK rules work but in Ontario Canada doesn't matter who is at fault both insurance companies pay out their own clients damages and because you were involved whether at fault or not it goes against your record as an accident. It's called no fault insurance. https://www.thinkinsure.ca/insurance...insurance.html

That truly sucks OP the Nissan shouldn't have been driven through the parking lot like that and easy enough to open a door at the wrong time. Interesting to think if your country drove on the right side of the road that door would not have been opened...

I just read that no fault insurance. I this will work out good if you don't have deductible on your insurance and your insurance premium will not go up either. So I assume that does not happen in ontario canada.

[GreenF30N26]

Originally Posted by Gen13 F36

I just read that no fault insurance. I this will work out good if you don't have deductible on your insurance and your insurance premium will not go up either. So I assume that does not happen in ontario canada.

Unfortunately that's not how it works. We still have deductibles and your premiums go up with every accident. The only benefit is no delay in payout to the clients while waiting for fault to be assigned and insurance companies getting money from other insurance companies. Most insurance companies offer an option called accident forgiveness, for a small monthly fee, which means the first accident you get into there is no premium change.

[R33Madog]

Im not sure why there is still a debate here. Clearly bmw drivers fault. When you open a car door, you a required to check it is safe to do so. Let me put it another way, if it was somebody pushing a trolley or a kid on a bike, whos fault would it be? Its pretty simple guys....

[Pauloxxi]

Originally Posted by R33Madog

Im not sure why there is still a debate here. Clearly bmw drivers fault. When you open a car door, you a required to check it is safe to do so. Let me put it another way, if it was somebody pushing a trolley or a kid on a bike, whos fault would it be? Its pretty simple guys....

Kid on a bike in a busy parking lot?
Kid on a bike squeezing around parked cars in a commercial parking lot?
Kid riding bicycle at speed that cannot stop the bike to prevent big damage?
Well.. very clear for me... the kid parents are the only responsible for their kids behavior and consequences. Because it is not a place for kids to ride bicycles in the first place.

[RMachuca3d]

Originally Posted by R33Madog

Im not sure why there is still a debate here. Clearly bmw drivers fault. When you open a car door, you a required to check it is safe to do so. Let me put it another way, if it was somebody pushing a trolley or a kid on a bike, whos fault would it be? Its pretty simple guys....

You are parked in a designated parking spot, imobile and stationary, you are not a moving vehicle, and you are surrounded by said parking spaces to either side. This absolutely puts the onus on the nissan.

Do you check BEHIND you for traffic when you park in a large parking lot before opening the door? I'm sure none of us do.

[COKen]

Originally Posted by RMachuca3d

Do you check BEHIND you for traffic when you park in a large parking lot before opening the door? I'm sure none of us do.

I do!

It is not that hard to look at your driver's side mirror when you are opening your door. But I doubt many passengers check before opening their doors.

[TheFanatic]

Originally Posted by R33Madog

Im not sure why there is still a debate here. Clearly bmw drivers fault. When you open a car door, you a required to check it is safe to do so. Let me put it another way, if it was somebody pushing a trolley or a kid on a bike, whos fault would it be? Its pretty simple guys....

so you're saying that if I rammed through your garage and hit your open car door that you would be at fault for not checking to see if it was safe to do so?

you're making a blanket statement for all scenarios where there can be none. The context of the situation does matter, and in this context the person driving across areas that are not designated for traffic is at fault.

Also it's been long enough (hopefully) to hear back from insurance. What was determined OP

[chiefneil]

Originally Posted by COKen

I do!

It is not that hard to look at your driver's side mirror when you are opening your door. But I doubt many passengers check before opening their doors.

I’ll check immediately beside me and just over my shoulder to see if someone is starting to nose in to the spot next to me at around 2mph, but I’m really not looking far enough behind me to spot a car approaching at 10-20mph.

The Nissan driver was driving irresponsibly - too fast for a parking lot, passing too close to parked cars, and especially dumb for not slowing down when passing too close to parked and occupied vehicles.

[Billfitz]

Exactly. Back when I was an insurance adjuster and accident reconstructor I'd have drawn those conclusions even without the video evidence. The damage to both cars makes it clear than the Nissan was traveling too fast and too close.

[CrumbyButter]

This is why you don't cut across parking lots unless theres NO CAR REMOTELY NEAR YOU.

Nissan driver is a dick. His fault. Not sure the law/insurance feels the way, but thats my 2c.

[Teejwi]

Haven't seen where all of this thread is going yet (only on 1st page)..but I've watched the video and seen a couple of people comment about maybe the car was trying to park there.

IMHO, that's irrelevant. Treat lines as walls. If there's damaged caused by 1 car driving over a paint line, that's the car at fault, period.

Sure, OP likely did the same when she parked (unless she backed into the spot) but she didn't hit anything. no harm no foul. Other driver comes blowing across multiple lines and hits you, 100% on them absolute zero question in my mind, whether they're trying to park next to you or not. My perspective.

[Billfitz]

That's the thing, parking spaces aren't travel lanes. The Nissan wasn't trying to park there, if it was it wouldn't have been going fast enough to cause that much damage.

[Poochie]

Regardless of where the accident occurred, I'm pretty sure the BMW driver will be found be at fault, based on the specific facts supplied here.

An operator or passenger opening their door of a motor vehicle, on either available side, unto moving traffic, may only do so in a reasonable safety manner, to which it does not interfering with the movement of other traffic. Which the BMW operator did not observe.

While the vehicles weren't on a public roadway, the same guidelines applies to that of a grocery store parking lot. This means if a person is going to open their door unto moving traffic, they should of been aware enough of their surroundings and check for any moving object that might be approaching. The vehicle that is still in motion (Nissan) does not bare the responsible of reacting to other driver's immediate, unsafe actions.

That being said, this doesn't mean that each insurance companies will fully exonerate both drivers of having any responsibility. When fault is disputed, each insurers companies will want to examine the damage of each vehicle to help determine the timing of events and decide if they will hold one or both parties responsible.

Insurance companies, even when fault is abundantly clear, just loves to splitting the baby in cases like this.

The outlook of the most likely at-fault insurance company is its worth the 50/50 chance that the vote might sway in their favor, at a state-sanctioned insurance arbitration process, where it could go either way, over absorbing all of the cost of the accident outright.

Rolling the dice at a arbitration for the at-fault party is painless and cost very little, yet put the chances on their side that the each party might still collect a percentage of each vehicle's' repair estimate or instead of collect nothing at all. So, in their eyes, it's benefits them to gamble and drag out the process, in hopes that it would pan out their favor.

Either way, I think you'll feel better making a claim and letting the insurance companies duke it out as to who was at fault but based on my hypothesis, the BMW insurance is going to foot the bill for both vehicle's repair cost.


https://www.findlaw.com/injury/car-a...-timeline.html

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/new...222731850.html

.

[TheFanatic]

Originally Posted by Poochie

unto moving traffic, movement of other traffic.
moving traffic, other driver's immediate, unsafe actions.

This is not considered moving traffic simply because they were not following the clearly marked lanes of travel, what your saying can be equal to a car cutting across multiple designated lanes on a highway and hitting your car parked on the shoulder. That immediately goes to the driver who is driving in an unsafe manner.

traffic is not any moving car, traffic and the rules that coincide with it are only in designated lanes approved for safe travel of a legal vehicle. In this case they were driving recklessly by crossing multiple lanes at higher than safe speeds while passing between multiple stationary cars. If you're driving through a park and hit a kid who came from in front of a car you would be ticketed for driving too fast for conditions, among other things. This is no different, the driver should have slowed down.

[chinniciF32]

I vote its the nissans fault while in most scenarios which involve street parking if a driver chooses to open their door on a road while parallel parked and a car driving by on the road hits the parked cars swung open door then the driver of the parked car would be at fault. Since the nissan is traveling fast and cutting through spaces they are the one at fault in this case.

btw i like the blue v brace