Who is the legal system more likely to believe? (car accident)

My car was at a standstill when a driver ahead of me suddenly went into reverse and backed into the front of my car. The accident was their fault, however the driver then said something to the effect that the law would consider me to be at fault because the impact evidence showed a collision of their car’s rear with my car’s front, thus appearing to be a rear-ender in which I hit them rather than them backing into me.
I have no video evidence to support my case. All I can do is simply tell the truth; that my car wasn’t even moving at the time of collision. Whose side is the law likely to favor?

consider mediation?

The police report should document the marks from your car being pushed backwards which is different from their car being pushed forward.

This is the type scenario where a dash cam would come in really handy.

I know right? Unfortunately I don’t have one.

If the other driver is going to lie about what happened and is any good at lying you’re going to be found at fault. No one is doing a CSI style investigation over a car accident that doesn’t even have an injury. The police report just takes each of your statements.

If you can prove they made false statements then you could not only win they could get in a lot of trouble. Any impartial witnesses?

Strongly suggest you do not mention your Dope username in court.

Alas, no.

I suppose that the remark by DrFidelius in Post #3 refers to the tire marks on the roadway, not necessarily the marks on the front of your car and the back of his. Did the police take note of that right then at the scene? If not, it’s probably too late now.

Maybe photos of the scene might help
The location of any broken glass or car parts may be instructive about the direction of travel at the time

Ugh. This makes me angry just reading it. “The law would consider”? No. “I am going to perjure myself and deliberately make you take the blame for something that was explicitly my fault”. What a weaselly, lack-of-character, piece of shit. I wish nothing but pain and suffering on this waste of space.

Was this intentional? Like some sort of liability insurance scam?

A lot would depend on what capacity “the law” has become involved here.

Did the cop issue tickets to either of you?

Is either of you planning on filing a law suit?

At least you know now – get one, and you can spend under a hundred bucks for it. Just about exactly a year ago someone smacked into me and totaled my car. Even though there were witnesses and no question it was the other driver’s fault, I put one into the next car.

I agree with some others – if the other driver lies and there is no other evidence, it’s going to be blamed on you.

One other idea for the future. If you have a smart phone with a voice recording feature, start it recording even before you get out of the car. But make sure you’ve not violating your state laws about recording conversations.

No, it didn’t seem intentional at all; a careless accident.

If the police either weren’t called or did not provide an accident report (which is often the case with minor accidents), then it’s purely a matter for his insurance carrier and yours. Call, make a claim, tell your insurance carrier exactly what happened, cooperate with their investigation and then let them deal with it. That is why you have insurance. I presume you got his insurance carrier information as well - give that to them.

They don’t actually give a rat’s ass whose fault it was.

If no citation was issued to you, then it’s not really a matter for the legal system at all - it’s a contract issue between the parties and their insurance carriers. In the unlikely event the other guy sues you in civil court, your insurance carrier will handle that, too.

It’s not stated in the OP; were you on a hill and did he have a clutch? My mom always rolled backwards a bit when she had a manual transmissions and was on a hill. If so, did you leave more than a couple inches between cars? If you were too close to him, and he engaged the clutch and rolled backwards a bit, I was taught (and this could be wrong, I’m not a lawyer) that the car behind was still at fault even though they were stationary.

I’ve heard of this sort of scam before, where someone backs into you and then asks you for cash on the spot to prevent them from calling the police and claiming you drove into them. Example here (which also illustrates the value of a dash cam). It only works if:

A) the damage to the perp’s car is minimal


B)he convinces you to not even call the cops and get insurance involved.

A perp who does this scam on a recurring basis does not want his car severely trashed each time, and he definitely does not want an officially documented history of this kind of accident because it will highlight him as a scammer.

Dash cams are cheap these days, as cheap as $50. OP won’t be helped in his current situation, but hopefully gets one ASAP to avoid this kind of crap in the future.

I’m curious if this is the case. You shouldn’t have to roll back at all with a manual transmission. But, then again, if you literally are only two to four inches behind the car in front of you, you are too close.

No, it was a flat road.

If the offending vehicle was a newer model the vehicles computer would have recorded the direction it was moving and braking (if any). The problem is you would probably have to get a court order to have their vehicle examined. OTOH, had there been someone walking between your vehicle and theirs and gotten squashed, it would have been imperative to have the computer examined.