I think he’s stealth bragging that he owns a BMW.
My very limited understanding would be that you would indeed be found at fault - you were obviously parked in a no parking zone when the damage occurred, so you get to pay the deductible and take the hit on your future insurance rates.
That’s my limited understanding as well, though I’m far from certain.
Anyone with expert knowledge car to chime in?
I wonder if there’d be more uproar if it was a Corvette?
When I was stationed in NYC, I once found myself close to the United Nations casually chatting with one of New York’s Finest. He griped about all the illegally parked expensive cars with diplomatic plates on them and the uselessness of ticketing them. I commented that I suspected even with diplomatic plates, it’s got to be a pain in the ass to get a smashed windshield replaced on a Bentley. And that I was surprised he wasn’t wearing one of those 5 D cell mag lights on his belt. He said it was daytime now, so he left it in his cruiser. And he smiled and wished me a nice day.
I think it has to be a little more complicated than that, though.
After all there are “No Parking” areas that are NOT in front of fire hydrants. Say, for example, that i park in a regular old “No parking” zone so i can run into the store and grab some milk. If some guy who is driving recklessly, or drunk, slams into my car and totals it, am i at fault because my car wasn’t supposed to be parked there in the first place?
I agree that someone who parks in front of a hydrant should be considered “at fault” in a case like this, not so much because it’s a "no parking’ zone, but because it’s a specific type of “no parking” zone, where the reason you can’t park there is directly related to public safety and the ability of firefighters to do their job.
I guess i would argue that the difference between the two scenarios described above is that, in the first case, the damage to my car is an unfortunate coincidence that just happened to occur while i was parked in the wrong spot, while in the second case, the damage to my car is a foreseeable consequence of choosing to park in front of a hydrant.
That’s why I can’t say with confidence whether this person would be coded as at fault. If I’m blocking your driveway and you hit me, you still shouldn’t have hit me.
I’m going to ask my manager on Monday.
The drunk/reckless driver should be held accountable for ALL damage that resulted from his recklessness/drunk driving. The fact that you were at fault for parking where you weren’t supposed to shouldn’t shield that driver from the consequences of his behavior.
OTOH, if lightning struck a light standard and caused it to crash down upon your car, I’d be okay with you eating the deductible and facing the higher premiums.
What do you mean by reckless? If you’re parked in a no parking zone and a drunk person hits your car, you’ll get a ticket for parking there, but the drunk person’s insurance is going to pony up the repair bill. I don’t see them even putting up a fight (or winning it for that matter).
OTOH, if you’re on the street in a no parking zone and someone just isn’t paying attention and slams into the back of your car because they were (legally) driving in that lane or passing someone on the right (legally) and wasn’t expecting a parked car there, it’s going to be your fault.
So far so good.
Now, if let’s mix the two and meet somewhere in the middle…
You’re parked on the street illegally, (say it’s 3am and there’s no overnight parking or something like that) and someone that’s totally sober smashes into your car, and lets say he was being ‘reckless’. Maybe he was goofing around in the car, maybe he was texting (in a place where it’s not illegal), maybe he just wasn’t paying attention, but something that’s going to get him a ticket and something that he probably shouldn’t have been doing, it was just a momentary lapse of judgement and the wrong moment.
The thing is, if your car wasn’t there, nothing would have happened.
So, who fixes your car? Him since he was driving recklessly and hit it or you since you shouldn’t have been parked there?
I’m guessing there’s an actual answer to this since it probably comes up all the time.
If my insured was the stationary vehicle I would put the person who hit the stationary vehicle at-fault. Maybe comparative negligence, but I definitely would not accept 100% liability. Yes, my insured should not have been there, but you shouldn’t have hit the car. What if the vehicle was broken down? What if, instead of a car someone had left their stroller on the street? Would you have been ok in hitting it? No.
If a vehicle is stationary, even if they should not be there, you shouldn’t hit the car. If you’re passing on the right then you have a duty to make sure the lane is clear. If you didn’t see the stationary vehicle until the ‘last second’ then you’re driving too fast for conditions and should have been going slower.
If my insured is the one whose vehicle is stationary, and he had collision coverage, I’d fix my insured’s vehicle and then send a subrogation demand to the driver’s insurance company. Liability percentage may depend on where the vehicle is parked (middle of the street versus off to the side), any distraction on the driving vehicle (yeah, texting may not be illegal in the state but it is a distraction), time of evening, etc.
California is a pure comparative state. What that means is each party can retrieve funds for the percentage they’re not at fault. For example, if my insured is found 70% at fault for the accident (let’s say someone made a left turn in front of them but the person making the left turn was able to clear 2 out of 3 lanes in traffic and we struck the passenger quarter-panel) then we would be able to recover 30% of our damages.
Ahhh, Wisconsin isn’t like that, one person is 100% at fault and covers everything. Usually the two insurance companies hash out the details. I’m trying to recall the details, but a few (15) years ago they were trying to change that WRT hitting parked car. I wish I could remember what it was. So many parked cars were getting hit that that I think they were worried that people were leaving their junkers on the road trying to get them hit and totaled. They wanted to change the law to make the person with the parked car partially responsible (at least for their own car’s damage) but I can’t remember if it was only in cases where the car was parked illegally or when it was parked legally as well.
My parents had, just at their house, two of their cars totaled, right in front of their house and a van smashed into (just some damage). My dad, growing up, had a few cars hit parked in front of his house and while I was in college one of my cars was totaled parked in front of my house.
All but one was were by people that were intoxicated (mostly alcohol, one methadone), one had a seizure. FTR, driving 35-40 and hitting a parked car at full speed will push the parked car about 15-20 feet (the police measure it) and it’s REALLY loud. It’s also pretty unmistakable. After hearing it the first time, I learned to call 911 before even running to the window, just knowing what it was.
Don’t insurance policies commonly have an exclusion for losses due to government actions (right up there with the standard “acts of God” exclusion)?
Most acts of God stuff would fall under comprehensive coverage, such as flooding, hail, trees, etc.
But you’re right, there are some exclusions like war and government seizure.
Hmm… this may fall under government action. I’d have to dig up the policy and have a look.
I’m sure he can afford to have it repaired.
I do find it funny. Hey, my Dad always told me they would do this if you parked in front of a hydrant. I guess he was right.
You can’t blame the firefighters. They did the right thing.
Not to mention, this was the Boston FD, which lost 2 firefighters to a 9-alarm blaze just a couple of weeks ago (March 26). While I’m sure they explored every option prior to smashing the car windows, I also suspect that tolerance for bullshit is pretty low.
It’s not just BMW drivers who do that–although they may be disproportionally represented.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/re_VFd7dajA/hqdefault.jpg
http://cdn.carthrottle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Fire-hose-through-a-BMW.jpg
I live in California, and i never realized that this was how the system worked.
Can i just say that this is a fucking retarded way to apportion fault, at least in the specific example you give. How the fuck can the person making the left turn in front of oncoming traffic be excused from 30% of the fault if he was able to clear two out of three lanes?
The law says that a person turning left across traffic is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic. If you make a left and the oncoming traffic hits you, then you have not, by definition, yielded. I’d be willing to apportion some blame to the oncoming driver if it could be proved that she was exceeding the speed limit, or something similar, but otherwise the fault should be 100 percent with the person making the turn.
In fact, the system you describe can actually result in penalilzing the oncoming driver for her own skill and reflexes. If she can’t step on the brakes quickly enough, and plows right into the middle of the oncoming car, then the person making the left turn will probably be 100 percent at fault. But if she hits the brakes, and even manages to swerve to the left a bit, in order to hit the rear quarter pane, resulting in a less serious and less dangerous accident, she has to eat 30 percent of the blame? That is complete bullshit.
I was thinking of the “hands clean” doctrine of laws - if your car gets hit on the street after you parked it illegally, your hands aren’t clean. You basically got caught doing a wrong thing, and I could see your insurance company apportioning you at least 50% of the blame.
I cannot imagine why.
Fire fighters love to break shit.
(Every job has its perqs.)
I’d be good with writing that into the law: that if a car is parked where a car is not allowed to be at that time of day, or at all, and someone runs into it, the owner is X% responsible for some set value of X. (The driver of the moving car is clearly more responsible, so I’d say X should be somewhere like 25-30%.)
And I’d add this: if you’re parked in front of a fire hydrant and the firefighters damage your car in the course of fighting a fire, not only should you be legally at fault, but it should be illegal to insure against that particular risk. So the person who parked in front of the hydrant would be stuck with the repair bill.
I bet that would really cut down on parking in front of hydrants.
Actually, the first option is “Chop gaping holes in the doors/bodywork” but there wasn’t time at this particular fire.