[Poochie]

Originally Posted by TheFanatic

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.

Line or no line, Earth or on Mars; reckless or safe driving, in insurance fault law, the contributing factors, such as the line markings, in this case would be considered immaterial and since the video proves that driver #2 was traveling at a reasonable speed, before being impeded by the opening of the BMW's car door, so that takes your comparative negligence argument off the table. Thus, rending the BMW driver fully responsible for this said collision.

Rules aside, it boils down basic common sense; the operator of the vehicle has to observe the surroundings and insure that the coast is clear, before opening their car door unto moving traffic, even that of a parking lot. Had the BMW driver yield to the right of way, the accident would of never happen.

I can cite even more case law results, that has already set precedent for this ultimate outcome of this scenario and fault determination but I won't bother, since I could tell it won't matter to you, as you seem to be set in your way of reasoning and we both have access to same Google search engine anyways.

So let's just agree to disagree here and move on instead of spending all morning going around in circles and ending up at the same point.

Good day and pro tip to all, always look twice before opening your car door unto traffic



.

[R33Madog]

Originally Posted by Pauloxxi

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.

You open a door and somebody hits u, its ur fault. The law is very clear that door opener is responsible for checking.

[R33Madog]

Originally Posted by TheFanatic

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

Im not making a blanket statement, im just telling you what the law is. I agree context matters, but in this context its bmws fault.

Your example is far fetched but take ur point that other factors matter. In this case, the nissan driving through empty spots in a public carpark would not be considered a violation of the highway code in most juridstictions. So there can be no fault apportioned to the nissan from a legal perspective.

End of the day, if you park your car in a public area, whether its on the curb, in a carpark, on the motorway, you are responsible to check before opening a door.

[Pauloxxi]

Originally Posted by R33Madog

You open a door and somebody hits u, its ur fault. The law is very clear that door opener is responsible for checking.

Where is posted this law that you say very clear?

[BWbimmer]

OP, is this case still open?

[AlmondJayRoM3]

Originally Posted by Pauloxxi

Where is posted this law that you say very clear?

Just Google “vehicle code door opening” and include the state or country. Most laws say the same thing.

[VidalBuffoon]

In the UK 'the law' doesn't generally decide who is at fault in an accident. The insurance companies will usually do a deal before the courts get involved. If the courts get involved it gets expensive for them and so it's normally settled.

This accident isn't clear cut by any stretch. The law does state you MUST check before opening your door but a driver is also responsible for due care and attention.

BMW is at fault for opening the door but just as importantly so is the Nissan because he was travelling too quickly, too close to parked cars to stop if a door opened.

It simply won't get to court, both drivers at fault to some extent so the insurance companies will close ranks to minimise their losses.

[BWbimmer]

Do we have a result in this case?

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by The0pportunist

Happy new year guys - lets play a little game.

So the Mrs decided to take the BMW to Sainsburys today (I really should insure her on the civic for trips like this). Anyway she parks up, checks mirrors (apparently), opens the door and kaboooom!

The Nissan is cutting through empty bays instead of using the car park properly. But it's a private car park so not sure if normal driving rules apply ?

I'll update this thread with the official decision from my insurance company in due course but would like to hear your thoughts on who's liable?

Dashcam footage & picture attached.

Parking spaces aren't drive lanes. You aren't supposed to pull thru like that. 100% Nissan fault.

What did insurance say?

[Billfitz]

+1. Those quoting relevant statutes are overlooking the key word traffic.
If this occurred where the Nissan was driving down the street the BMW is at fault. The Nissan was not driving down the street. It was driving through a parking lot as if it was a street. That makes the Nissan at fault.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by Elvisfan

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

If you think "fault" is the same as "illegal", you don't understand insurance. If you accidentally back into someone else's parked car in a parking lot or a driveway, you didn't to anything "illegal" (unless it's a hit and run), but you are certainly "at fault".

[BWbimmer]

Since this all happened over a month ago, it would be really intresting to find out what the outcome is...

[TheFanatic]

Originally Posted by Billfitz

+1. Those quoting relevant statutes are overlooking the key word traffic.
If this occurred where the Nissan was driving down the street the BMW is at fault. The Nissan was not driving down the street. It was driving through a parking lot as if it was a street. That makes the Nissan at fault.

I tried saying that a few times but some people just dont understand

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by TheFanatic

I tried saying that a few times but some people just dont understand

Welcome to the internet...

[The0pportunist]

Finally received a reply from my insurance company...

Unfortunately my insurer accepted full liability for the accident, their response attached in this post.

Also worth mentioning this accident happened in the UK and perhaps a different outcome had it happened anywhere else.

Thanks for all the responses and well done to the 10% that predicted the outcome correctly!

[rchipcar]

Ah that's shame because it really should be the nissan's fault!

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by rchipcar

Ah that's shame because it really should be the nissan's fault!

+1

[Icarium81]

Seems like common sense to me, the person getting out of the car is responsible for doing thst task safely. Regardless of anything else going on.

[jared21927]

Well I'm not celebrating being correct, but I'm not surprised. You opened the door and hit something. Insurance, as a business, will always expect you to do your part in avoiding accidents, despite what those around you may be doing. Hopefully the total outcome wasn't too bad for you OP. Glad we all got to contribute thoughts.

[bryanbrian]

Do you normally check your mirrors and do a shoulder check when your car is stopped in a parking lot? I do when parallel parking on the street to watch for cars and especially bikes but in this case I don't think you would look back 100' to make sure nobody is tearing through the parking lot. I will revise my opinion and the Nissan is 90% at fault instead of 100%. However, he is 100% dick and should volunteer to pay for damages.

[TheFanatic]

All that taught me it to actively look for people with an open door in a parking lot so I can plow into it and get some money out of a beater car. Jokes aside at least we found out what the insurance thinks

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by TheFanatic

All that taught me it to actively look for people with an open door in a parking lot so I can plow into it and get some money out of a beater car. Jokes aside at least we found out what the insurance thinks

I know you're joking but for the record, there is a huge distinction between opening your door into traffic and a door that is already open.

If the claimant and other driver establishes that they had their door fully open and not in a pendulum motion, prior to you plowing into it, you will be found to be a 100% at fault, in such a scenario.

However, if you're innocently driving by and someone opens their door into your right of way, leaving you no choice but to collide into it, then they are 100% at fault.

This is why the OP's insurance company accepted liability for the accident, since both their stories matched and their was no damage to the other's party front end.

The difference in liability is the circumstances and story or disputes. The fact that your door is damage is immaterial in determining fault.