hit illegally parked car
Registered!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
Rep Power: 0 
uh no, the car that hit the parked car is at fault. Illegally parked or not. The driver of the car must be responsible for the control of his vehicle that is in motion.
This was covered under our state law recently. A guy tried to use this excuse when he rear ended a double parked car. The car's owner that was rear ended wanted to sue for damges, the judge ruled in his favor, however minusing out expenses for the other driver since the parked car was breaking a law as well. Both are in the wrong, however, the parked car would be the one that gets a way with it.
This was covered under our state law recently. A guy tried to use this excuse when he rear ended a double parked car. The car's owner that was rear ended wanted to sue for damges, the judge ruled in his favor, however minusing out expenses for the other driver since the parked car was breaking a law as well. Both are in the wrong, however, the parked car would be the one that gets a way with it.
Last edited by RipCurl; Dec 23, 2003 at 09:21 PM.
Registered!!
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,196
Likes: 1
From: East Tennessee-Knoxville
Rep Power: 373 Originally posted by RipCurl
uh no, the car that hit the parked car is at fault. Illegally parked or not. The driver of the car must be responsible for the control of his vehicle that is in motion.
This was covered under our state law recently. A guy tried to use this excuse when he rear ended a double parked car. The car's owner that was rear ended wanted to sue for damges, the judge ruled in his favor, however minusing out expenses for the other driver since the parked car was breaking a law as well. Both are in the wrong, however, the parked car would be the one that gets a way with it.
uh no, the car that hit the parked car is at fault. Illegally parked or not. The driver of the car must be responsible for the control of his vehicle that is in motion.
This was covered under our state law recently. A guy tried to use this excuse when he rear ended a double parked car. The car's owner that was rear ended wanted to sue for damges, the judge ruled in his favor, however minusing out expenses for the other driver since the parked car was breaking a law as well. Both are in the wrong, however, the parked car would be the one that gets a way with it.
Injen
Registered!!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
From: New Brunswick, New Jersey, US
Rep Power: 0 Originally posted by injencivic
wrong, the illegal parked car is at fault.
Injen
wrong, the illegal parked car is at fault.
Injen
Its a celebration bitches!
iTrader: (17)
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,216
Likes: 1
From: LA, CALi
Rep Power: 404 i would think in cali it would be the hitter.... and both people are stupid 1. for the double parked car and 2. for hitting a non moving car.
the only way i would think it would be the parked cars fault if it was in a blind spot
and if it was the drivers fault it would be because he was going to fast of didn't pay attention...
what if that car was broken down, it still dowesn't make it thats cars fault it couldn't go anywhere
the only way i would think it would be the parked cars fault if it was in a blind spot
and if it was the drivers fault it would be because he was going to fast of didn't pay attention...
what if that car was broken down, it still dowesn't make it thats cars fault it couldn't go anywhere
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Rep Power: 0 It's pretty tough because this happened in a condo's driveway, which everyone shares. The driveway is enough for only one car each direction. The car that my dad hit was parked on one side. The other guy did not just park there, he parked there overnight. My dad claimed that it was dark and when he was backing out could not see the other car. There is also a sign that says "No Parking in Driveway". I don't know whether or not to tell my dad to pay the other guy for damages (which he estimated to be $800) for an old nissan.
7thgens other Official Five O'
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,215
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale, AZ
Rep Power: 0 Another issue you run into is that it happened on private property...in AZ the police wont even show up to a private property accident unless it inlvolves DUI or injury.
Registered!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,263
Likes: 0
From: Aurora, Illinois, US
Rep Power: 0 the parked car would still win because YOU hit him, he was parked you hit him.
That is what it will come down too. If the judge wants to be a dic% about it he could easily say that you failed to move to avoid an accident, then ticket you and make you pay for the damages too.
That is what it will come down too. If the judge wants to be a dic% about it he could easily say that you failed to move to avoid an accident, then ticket you and make you pay for the damages too.
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 0 It's the clear fault of the driver who hit the parked car.
It is the responsibility of drivers in moving vehicles to deal with hazards on the road including stationary items such as parked cars.
The fact that the car is illegally parked is a red herring that has no bearing on the case. Those that say the illegally parked car is at fault should consider the flip side of that argument - it's perfectly OK to hit illegally parked cars.
Another argument that's commonly heard is that it wasn't the fault of the driver who rear ended the car who had burned out tail lights. That's plain wrong because it is the responsibility of the following driver to maintain a safe distance between his car and the car in front of him. It would be silly to say that a lack of tail lights makes it OK to hit the car but it's the same argument used by those who say hitting the parked car is the other drivers fault.
It is the responsibility of drivers in moving vehicles to deal with hazards on the road including stationary items such as parked cars.
The fact that the car is illegally parked is a red herring that has no bearing on the case. Those that say the illegally parked car is at fault should consider the flip side of that argument - it's perfectly OK to hit illegally parked cars.
Another argument that's commonly heard is that it wasn't the fault of the driver who rear ended the car who had burned out tail lights. That's plain wrong because it is the responsibility of the following driver to maintain a safe distance between his car and the car in front of him. It would be silly to say that a lack of tail lights makes it OK to hit the car but it's the same argument used by those who say hitting the parked car is the other drivers fault.
Registered!!
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,196
Likes: 1
From: East Tennessee-Knoxville
Rep Power: 373 Originally posted by AZ2K1Civic
Another issue you run into is that it happened on private property...in AZ the police wont even show up to a private property accident unless it inlvolves DUI or injury.
Another issue you run into is that it happened on private property...in AZ the police wont even show up to a private property accident unless it inlvolves DUI or injury.
Injen
Thread
Thread Starter
Honda Civic Forum
Replies
Last Post
