Help with Accident

[KSXNSX]

I was backing out of my parking space (very slowly, head completely turned with a clear line of sight) when I was hit by a Nissan Frontier from the side (she was backing up perpendicular from my line of travel).

I think the damage on the car shows that she hit me from the side, but my insurance company doesn't seem to want to do any forensic analysis. The best I can do is get a statement from my body shop.

The other party is lying and now claiming she was not moving at all, and parked waiting for a spot--and that I backed into her. Even my insurance company says the photos I have are ambiguous. I believe she backed up so suddenly because she wanted to get into that spot marked in the last picture. She wasn't anywhere in my line of sight when I was backing up. She was beyond the prius immediately to my passenger side.

No police report was filed, and no independent witnesses could be secured at the time. It is just my word and my passenger's word, against her and her passenger's word.

I have plenty of photos and a video, but I am not sure how to best put together a claim against them.

Can anyone with experience help?

 

[KSXNSX]

I guess a better question is if anyone has had experience with a autobody forensic analyst and has gone to court with it.

 

[RSO 34]

A "forensic analysis" won't prove who hit who. The photos are proof of points of impact only but won't establish who was moving or stopped.

 

[DRIFTER]

If its In a parking lot it's 50/50 regardless of whos at fault. Unless someone was acting reckless. From my experience.

 

[TomCat]

A "forensic analysis" won't prove who hit who. The photos are proof of points of impact only but won't establish who was moving or stopped.

I am going to kind of disagree.
Cars travel linear with their tire/friction path.
Someone skilled in vector analysis should be able to determine the initial/primary point of impact and therefore which linear motion caused it.

From the pictures, it sure looks like the Avalon received the hit from the side since the rear of the bumper is forced "out". If the white car was moving/backing on impact (I would think) that the bumper would be pushed "in".

 

[RSO 34]

From the pictures, it sure looks like the Avalon received the hit from the side since the rear of the bumper is forced "out". If the white car was moving/backing on impact (I would think) that the bumper would be pushed "in".

Having handled thousands of accident cases, I feel confident that these photos plus the op's story won't prove anything. He said he was moving on impact so there goes your theory......:wink:

I was backing out of my parking space (very slowly, head completely turned with a clear line of sight) when I was hit

 

[Midnight_Raven]

From the first picture it looks like there may be some left over paint marks on your rear bumper that are perpendicular to your direction of motion which to me indicates the truck had to be backing into you to cause that. I could be wrong about the left over paint but if it is you might be able to use that.

 

[PHOEN$X]

Man that sucks. At least you weren't carjacked by a crazy guy. And you weren't in your NSX. Hope you get it all sorted out. You may end up having to file a claim against your own insurance as the time/effort it would take to try to prove her legally at fault may not be worth it.

 

[Hapa88]

Since it's on private property, doesn't each insurance company just pay for the damages on their own client's car?

 

[DRIFTER]

Since it's on private property, doesn't each insurance company just pay for the damages on their own client's car?

Thats how it works in NY and a lot of other states. But each state is different.

 

[RSO 34]

Thats how it works in NY.

Not true.

Negligence/culpability is not affected by location of the accident. Either you is or you ain't culpable irrespective of the ownership of the accident situs.

 

[DRIFTER]

Not true.

Negligence/culpability is not affected by location of the accident. Either you is or you ain't culpable irrespective of the ownership of the accident situs.

Tell that to the insurance companies. (Im sure you do at times) They don't ever fight it, It cost more money to do so unless you're a lawyer:wink:. Plus then they can rase everyone who was involved premiums. Thats what no-fault was invented for.

 

[RSO 34]

Tell that to the insurance companies. (Im sure you do at times) They don't ever fight it, It cost more money to do so unless you're a lawyer:wink:. Plus then they can rase everyone who was involved premiums. Thats what no-fault was invented for.

This is what I have done every day for over 25 years. If it is not litigated in the courts then it is done through inter-company arbitration. It makes no difference whether you on a private or a public road. If you hit someone, you are liable.

As far as no-fault, that was the result of way too many soft tissue injury lawsuits (i.e. "whiplash" type injuries) being filed and driving up the cost of premiums for people suing for their medical bills plus pain and suffering. The elimination of those injuries that do not meet the threshold definition of "serious injury" under the NY Insurance Law in exchange for the injured person's receipt of payment for medical bills and wages under his own no fault coverage actually brought the cost of insurance down.

 

[quack]

The photo does show who was moving and who was stopped, in "her car 2" Her bumper has damage like 6 inches from the edge (that large dent) that dent matches your bumper beam photo. if you had backed into her the damage would be on the edge of her bumper not skipped a few inches from the edge. It could be different if you guys were not 90 degrees from each other, but you photo shows the angle. Anyways I don't understand people that lie like that. She backed into someone, no big deal. Probably a sociopath and doesn't have a conscience.

 

[RSO 34]

The photo does show who was moving and who was stopped

Alright, I give up - my last post.

Since the OP already admitted he was moving, albeit slowly, when the impact occurred - - - exactly how does the photo show something that the OP doesn't say happened?

He was not stopped so either both cars were moving simultaneously or he hit a stopped vehicle.

Either way, he will have at least 50% of the culpability assuming both were backing up since both would share responsibility for unsafe backing. If she was stopped, he would owe it all.

And now back to your regular programming.......

 

[quack]

Alright, I give up - my last post.

Since the OP already admitted he was moving, albeit slowly, when the impact occurred - - - exactly how does the photo show something that the OP doesn't say happened?

He was not stopped so either both cars were moving simultaneously or he hit a stopped vehicle.

Either way, he will have at least 50% of the culpability assuming both were backing up since both would share responsibility for unsafe backing. If she was stopped, he would owe it all.

And now back to your regular programming.......

You're right I meant to say, It looked like he was already backed out more from the damage. It could considered 50/50 like you say so I'm not arguing you. I just say the force looks like it came from the frontier because of the damage in the photos.

 

[RSO 34]

Ok - I guess I lied. I just had to post again.

Assuming this photo to be the correct positioning of the two vehicles after impact without either being moved:

Then your drawings are inaccurate as to the point of impact. Additionally, we do not see his front wheels so it is undetermined from the photos as to whether he was backing straight out.

Additionally, the OP may be taking the "more favorable inference" by claiming that the "damage" to her vehicle is in fact from this incident (and if it is even "damage"). I see scratches on the outer portion of her bumper consistent with him backing into her:

 

[KSXNSX]

RSO: I watched her back into me. I'm not sure why you, and my insurance company, are giving her the benefit of the doubt. I came on here looking for help on my case, and as an insurance claim rep with 20+ years of experience, you could have given me some helpful tips or tried to help me build a case. Instead, all you've done is argue against my case (helping some random stranger instead) with faulty reasoning and unwarranted and unreasonable assumptions. My question is why?

I'm really not sure what is so hard to understand about the bumper beam. Had I backed into her, the damage would have been to the side of her bumper and not where it is. Why would you even presume that the damage was pre-existing? If you look at the pictures, the point of indentation on her bumper is precisely where my bumper beam is. You blame me for presuming that the indentation was caused by the accident--the photos indicate it was. Then you go and presume that those little scratches were caused by the accident. Please explain why you would find fault in my reasonable inference, and make your own unreasonable one? For the record, I have photos of the other side of her bumper and there are scratches there too. It doesn't mean I caused those. No photos indicate that.

It would be impossible for me to have caused that indentation on her bumper at that location had I backed into her.

The only help you've been is to provide some insight on the thought process of a typical insurance rep. Not exactly confidence inspiring. And I definitely believe you have been doing this for a while. You sound JUST like my insurance company. You are ignoring the obvious, the actual evidence, and making wild unsupported assumptions for no reason whatsoever.

Am I to assume that they are all going to believe her lie that she was parked and not moving? I just don't understand how everyone is giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[DocL]

It really doesn't matter who hit who. You have insurance so let them take care of it. I backed into someone and it was clearly my fault and the damage didn't do anything to raise my rates. It's not like you creamed into anther car at an intersection. Don't lose any sleep and forget about it.

Just my $0.02.

 

[nsxtasy]

Does it even matter who was at fault? If no one was hurt - that's what it sounds like, and that's a good thing - then each of you is going to file a claim with your own insurance company to get your car fixed, each will pay for your car's repair less your deductible, and then the insurance companies will work it out between themselves as far as responsibility for the cost. In a minor damage parking lot case, I doubt they even think twice about it; they probably just leave it at that, each company pays for the repair for its own customer.

So even if you want to argue that it was her fault, I don't think it's going to make any difference as a practical matter.

$.02

 

[KSXNSX]

Thanks Doc. It's just a matter of principle for me, and the matter of the deductible, points on my record, and increased premiums.

I just can't stand the fact that this person not only caused damage to my car, and put people (including kids walking in the parking lot) in danger, but has the audacity to flat-out lie about it and try to put the blame on me.

I suppose I should be more jaded and cynical, and just chalk it up to society, but there is just something in me that wants to nail this person for lying.

I also don't want any points on my record, or any increase in insurance premiums. Not to mention the loss of value on my vehicle having now been in an accident.

If she had just owned up to everything and not lied, I would have just let insurance take care of everything. Her insurance company would have paid all of my $500 deductible, and I would have called it a day.

I am not 100% sure, but now I am concerned that because she is denying any responsibility, we have to go to intercompany arbitration. As demonstrated by RSO's reasoning, this may not turn out well for me regardless of what actually happened. If I am found at fault, I believe I will get points on my record, my premiums will increase, and I will be responsible for all of my deductible.

So yes, I do believe it matters who was at fault.

 

[LJSB]

I think the damage on the car shows that she hit me from the side

From the damage I see on the white car it was struck from the side. This damage could not be from the white car hitting a object while moving backwards. It is from the other vehicle backing into it. It is clear the white vehicle was stopped when this impact occurred.

I don't know anything else like if the truck was already in the lane of travel and the car backed into it's path or the opposite, the car was out of it's spot when the truck backed into it but very clearly the truck struck the car. The car did not strike the truck.

I know how the bumper is assembled and attached to the car. The car was not and could not of been moving backwards and was in fact stopped when the impact occurred.

 

[LJSB]

If I am found at fault, I believe I will get points on my record, my premiums will increase, and I will be responsible for all of my deductible.

You will not be found 100% at fault or 100% in the right. There will be comparative liability and a percentage of fault assigned to each.
As for how it may or may not affect your rate that will be determnied by your insurance company's underwriter. There could be several other factors in their determination besides the percentage of liability from this one loss.

You can scream you can holler but unless you have better than each others word and these photos the two companies will reach an agreement on comparative liability and that will be that. Sorry, but that's the way it is.:frown:

DocL is right. Don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[KSXNSX]

thanks pbassjo.

 

[biscuits]

From the damage I see on the white car it was struck from the side. This damage could not be from the white car hitting a object while moving backwards. It is from the other vehicle backing into it. It is clear the white vehicle was stopped when this impact occurred.

I don't know anything else like if the truck was already in the lane of travel and the car backed into it's path or the opposite, the car was out of it's spot when the truck backed into it but very clearly the truck struck the car. The car did not strike the truck.

I know how the bumper is assembled and attached to the car. The car was not and could not of been moving backwards and was in fact stopped when the impact occurred.

Obviously the truck is at fault. Anyone with any idea as to how vehicles are assembled can clearly see that. In fact anyone with a basic understanding of physics can see that.