Based on your image, the red car would be at fault. I don’t see how whether the blue car is traveling forward or backwards would make a difference, since the blue car was hit by the red car, not the other way around.
Imagine putting the little headlight spots on the other side of the blue rectangle. Isn’t the red car clearly at fault then?
I don’t know the answer to your question, I suspect it ultimately depends on the state where the accident happened.
But, I have always been told (since my first accident, which was in a parking lot, nearly 40 years ago) that nobody has the right of way in a parking lot. The at-fault party is the vehicle that did the hitting, in this case, Car B (the red car). It really doesn’t matter Car A was going in reverse or anything else, Car B hit him and if Car B was paying attention, he would have avoided the accident. Now if Car B had pulled out a few seconds earlier, it would have been Car A’s fault, but since B hit A, B pays.
Seems the consensus is that the red car is at fault. To clarify one point, the fact that the blue car was driving wrecklessly doesn’t change the fact the red car hit the blue car and transfer fault?
You are at fault when your car rear ends another one. If your friend was paying attention he would have seen the car backing up toward him and stopped. Then he wouldn’t have rear-ended it, the other car would have backed into him and been at fault.
And I doubt the blue car was being driven recklessly. That’s just the excuse your friend is using.
ETA: Looking at the animation there’s no doubt your friend was at fault. He hit the other car by pulling out of a parking space without looking.
My friend was actually driving the blue car. I’m attempting to look at the situation objectively which is why I’m disregarding that and stating that she was driving recklessly.
The reason I’m calling her driving reckless is because she was going 15-20mph in reverse for the sole purpose of entertainment. I witnessed the accident so these observations are all my own.
The red car didn’t stop because the driver didn’t look in the direction that the blue car was coming from and just pulled through.
I would say Car B (your friend) was at fault. When I pull through an unoccupied space like that, I always come to a full stop and look to the right and left to be sure the way is clear before pulling out. Pulling ahead without stopping and getting a good view of the situation is what I would consider reckless driving and is seldom going to end well.
If the Blue car was moving (and fast, as you describe) against the marked traffic flow then I think that they were at fault - the Red Car may have only checked for vehicles moving in the permitted direction.
My daughter had an accident in a car park - she was reversing out of a park with an empty space on her right (UK, so RHD) and turning left. Another car started reversing into that empty space, and her nose entered the space and hit the side of the other car. She was looking back and left (as she should have been) and could not see the other car coming from the other direction against the traffic flow. The other driver blamed my daughter, but the insurance companies said 50/50. That suited us fine, as our car needed no repairs. The other driver tried to push it through the courts, but the insurance companies settled it eventually, with no comeback on us.
And I missed where you said your friend was driving the blue car. My apologies. The driver of the red car was still at fault since he should have stopped and yielded to traffic moving down the middle of the rows. Both drivers were being reckless, but the red car was at fault because he ran into your friend.
Generally, the person going straight, with no end-of-lane or intersection with other lanes, has right of way. It is the responsibility of someone pulling out into a lane of traffic to ensure the coast is clear.
As others pointed out, if the one-way is obvious and commonly observed (some places have angled parking that make wrong way difficult) then there may be an argument. However, the same prudence would apply to ensure, for example, a pedestrian was not walking into your path from the wrong side as you backed up or exit the stall. Backing up may show the person was going the wrong way; however, they still have right of way. If they appeared not to be looking back while backing up, that would be careless driving - but good luck proving that in court.
If the blue car was going unreasonably fast they share the blame. Many large mall lots have a sign posted that says something like a 20mph speed limit or 25mph. The trick would be to show this person was exceeding the posted speed limit (or the standard urban limit of 30mph/50kmph and therefore owned part of the blame for driving recklessly (but not wrecklessly, apparently). When you are backing up, 20mph may be pretty fast - but still under the speed limit.
In some states I am told (I have heard this about NJ, not sure how true) it is illegal to back into a parking stall. This would mean that the position of the car “pulling through” would be questionable, but technically not illegal.
In the posted example, the car does not rear-end the other, it t-bones the fender. Hitting someone from the side it makes it hard to argue you had any right of way.
So essentially, unless you have independent witnesses to say excessive speed or other lack of care (not watching) the car leaving the parking spot is to blame.
One point that is missing is how far the blue car was backing up. It probably wouldn’t make any difference overall, but if the car only covered 3 spaces (15 feet?) like in your gif it would paint a different picture than if they had gone backwards 40 feet.
Forward or backward, they still have the right of way down a lane. I would imagine the person pulling out of the stall has the onus to check for traffic before pulling out. The fac they are pulling out forward should mean they can see a lot better than someone backing out, and so should have seen the problem.
If as the diagram indicates, they hit the side of the backing-up car, then they did not see traffic. If they were half-out when the other car whipped out of their stall backward, then they would have their fender hit by the backup car and the backing-up car would be at fault.
But essentially, if the first car “owned” the lane, was already in it, they have right of way. The car pulling out must avoid cutting them off, unless they are so far away that the car in the lane has plenty of time to stop.
As an aside, a petition filed in Texas about ten years ago was ruthlessly mocked as it claimed defendant driver was “headless and wreckless.” It was in the bar journal, but I can’t find it via Google.
