His friend was driving the blue car, not the red car.
For crying out loud, it’s “reckless”. If it were “wreckless” there wouldn’t be a need to contact insurance.
IMHO in parking lots people need to drive slowly because of the restricted sight line of the cars pulling out of the lanes. You should not drive down the aisle faster than you can stop in a dozen feet, and you should not pull out of a space quickly.
In this case, Blue Car is probably the most at fault. S/he was reversing in a way that gave him a blind spot where Red was. Thus, was unable to stop and avoid the collision. Red may have recklessly exited the spot and deserve more of the blame, but I can’t tell that from a diagram.
Can’t say from a legal perspective, but from a logical and rational perspective, the red car is at fault for pulling into traffic. The blue car has right-of-way.
I’d like to point out that I once got a ticket when I got hit by a car that was backing up in traffic. I took it to court and the judge didn’t even let me present my case - he just asked if I agreed with the officer’s description of the accident (I did), and he said “dismissed.” When the officer started to protest, the judge said “no, it’s not reasonable to expect to yield to someone backing up in traffic. Case dismissed.”
So, the person backing up may have some culpability…
Md2000 I’m wondering where you are getting your information.
I’ll try to get online and give a better answer. I don’t want to try on my phone.
Has there been any clarification as to whether the blue car was reversing down a one-way parking lane?
Based on the link I suspect this was not the case and therefore the red car is clearly at fault. However, if it was in fact a one-way parking lane than I think that puts the blue car at fault.
I worked as a property damage insurance adjuster in NJ about 10 years ago. Take this for what it’s worth, knowing it might be a little out of date.
NJ is a comparative negligence state, which generally means that unless the accident is clear-cut(*), fault will be negotiated and assigned proportionally to each party. This can either be done by negotiation through the two parties’ insurance companies or through the courts if the two insurance companies can’t come to an agreement.
Based on my experience, it sounds like both parties are at fault here and would likely be split 50/50. Exactly what this means for your friend’s rates and deductible is probably in their policy somewhere. If the insurance companies/judge will come to the same conclusion is going to be based on testimony from the drivers, any witness statements and if there was a police report.
An actual easy/quick way to tell on police reports (at least it was as of a few years ago still) who may be listed as “at fault” in the police officer’s opinion. Look at the right margin, there should be a series of boxes (if they’re using the “standard” police report for NJ). The top four boxes will define the “contributing circumstances” to the accident.
Use pg 3 of this link this link - warning PDF! - to determine what the codes mean.
- For the record - a “clear cut” accident would be someone hitting a parked car that’s properly parked, or most standard “rear-ending” accidents (like in stop+go traffic). This one isn’t in that category, imo.
Good luck!
A parking lot, though, is different from a road. I think you have to expect that people may be backing up in a parking lot.
ETA: If the blue car backed into a stationary red car, that would of course be different.
There are a couple of issues here. As a police officer in NJ who has done many accident investigations I will go at it from that angle.
This is an accident on private property. That changes things. Some towns won’t even do accident investigations on private property. We do. Especially if it is in quasi-public property like a parking lot.
However, for the most part things like signs, speed limits and marks on the pavement are not relevant. Those are all things that can be enforceable under Title 39 of the NJ code. They are not enforceable on private property. Unless the property owner has asked for Title 39 to be enforced on his property, and the signage has been inspected and approved as DOT compliant, and an ordinance has been approved to allow Title 39 to be enforced on that property.
As part of a NJ police report there is nothing stated “at fault”. There is a section called contributing circumstances. Now you can put down “none” for one of the vehicles which would in effect say the other vehicle was at fault. But in an accident like this I would most likely put “backing unsafely” for one and “driver inattention” to the other. That is just going by the posted picture. My opinion might have been different if I saw the actual scene. There would be no failure to yeild right of way because technically there is no right of way on private property.
In NJ there are several motor vehicle statutes that can be used on private property. Not too many when you look at the entire Title 39. The following statutes are enforceable on private property, Carless Driving, Reckless Driving, Driving While Suspended, DWI, Abandoning a Motor Vehicle on Private Property, Destruction of agricultral or recreational property, Using a Motor Vehicle Without Owners Consent, Riding on Parts Not Intended For Passengers, Leavng the Scene of an Accident, Failure to Report an Accident and Handicap Parking. So a driver can be found to be careless and get a ticket on private property. But not for going through an unofficial stop sign.
As for reckless driving, you would have to go well above careless. There is also the element of intent when you do the act. So not only do you have to be driving like an asshole, it has to be proven that it was your intent to drive dangerously. It is defined as:
I don’t see that here.
The other issue is how an insurance company is going to handle it. Celidin covered it for the most part. From the link provided here is an important part,
They investigate. They use the accident report from the police if one is available. But they determine and assign fault. It has nothing to do with if a ticket was issued. It may not match what the officer put down as a contributing circumstance. They can look at the officer’s report and disagree and go with their own findings.
Hope I answered some of the questions.
Nice and clear response – awesome.
I did want to point out one thing, though:
I assume the bolded part was meant to be “careless,” but it made for a funny image in my head of someone levitating over the pavement in a driving position and honking an imaginary horn.
You are correct. Carless driving is perfectly legal. Unless drunk.
Excellent response, it complete answers every question I had.
Thanks to everyone for the replies! It seems the red car is at fault for pulling through as they hit the blue car and not the other way around.
Red cars are always at fault, except in blue states, where they’re just…wrong.
Regardless of the law and whatever douchiness your friend (Car A) was exhibiting by reversing down a parking lot lane for fun, Car B holds much more blame here, in my opinion.
-
“Pulling through” an empty spot in front of you is a dick move. You can’t see what’s in the lane ahead and oncoming traffic may have identified that spot as empty and started to pull into it before you started moving forward.
-
After pulling the first dick move, Car B decided to just totally say “fuck it” and not even check oncoming traffic in the lane before proceeding, which was their obligation, even if they had legitimately backed into the spot. Dick move, squared.
Your friend is kind a douchebag for playing games in a parking lot, but Car B is a world class douchebag for ignoring parking lot etiquette and safety to an alarming degree. They were driving blind into the lane from an unexpected position and they’re lucky they only hit another car instead of mowing down a shopper on their way into the store.
Huh?
If you think that the conclusion to be drawn from Loach’s post is simply that “the red car is at fault for pulling through as they hit the blue car,” then i submit that you didn’t read his explanation very closely at all.
Not at all. I simply stated that to express my final thoughts on the matter. The insurance companies ruled the red car completely at fault so based on Loach’s excellent post I’m stating my agreement with their decision.
Hello,
I have a similar incident and was wondering whether you could tell me how you created that diagram? Need to make one myself to show what happened.
Thanks!
How did you draw that picture scenario?
Thanks!
That person hasn’t posted here in more than six months.