Three days ago at 9:30 PM my daughter backed her car out of our garage. she hide the side of a parked car which the owner claims will cost us over $1,000 to fix. Now -- the hit car be parked ILLEGALLY, in a completely unlighted area, the adjectives space between the garages. The condo association regularly warns tenants NOT to park within these common areas, but in the street or surrounded by their garages. We also repeatedly told the owner of the next-door condo NOT to park there and not to allow her friends to park nearby. But her friends keep parking there anyway
We call out insurance company and surprisingly, their representative said WE would be responsible for the damage -- even though the car have no business being parked there. His claim be that, by LAW, "since my daughter's car was moving and the scofflaw's coup¨¦ was parked, it couldn't possibly be his fault"
So our company has to payment for violation of condo park rules, and our insurance rates are going to go up besides.
Can I come to blows this?
Not really, regardless of what hitch in the path is, hand is responsible to maintain control and avoid collision. If there be not enough room to safely procure your vehicle out then the vehicle can be towed if it is parked in a obvious no parking zone. Maybe they will get the hint if they come out and their sports car isn't there. It is a very frustrating situation dealing beside inconsiderate people but that's why there are rules that call for to be enforced by the condo association. Check with the condo association about the rules and who you can contact to remove vehicle when they impede your access to the garage.
Sorry, it does not matter if the vehicle was off the record parked. She hit a stationary object. She should have made better use of her mirrors. Supposing she struck a pedestrian who be J-walking or not using the cross walk, she would be responsible for that loss as well.
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Doesn`t matter if the car is parked reasonably or not. You still hit another vehicle. A car is a big thing to not see, and close to your ins co said . You hit a parked car, it`s not like it snuck up aft you and jumped in the route. You may want to be more carefull backing out. Make arrangements with the condo to post no parking and tow signs, and see if they enforce the rules. But ultimately you are still responsible. Sorry No, you can't. The insurance company is right. You might not enjoy to pay as much as might have if he weren't parked criminally, but the operator of the moving vehicle is the negligent get-together nearly 85% of the time.
Doesn`t matter if the car is parked reasonably or not. You still hit another vehicle. A car is a big thing to not see, and close to your ins co said . You hit a parked car, it`s not like it snuck up aft you and jumped in the route. You may want to be more carefull backing out. Make arrangements with the condo to post no parking and tow signs, and see if they enforce the rules. But ultimately you are still responsible. Sorry
Not really, regardless of what hitch in the path is, hand is responsible to maintain control and avoid collision. If there be not enough room to safely procure your vehicle out then the vehicle can be towed if it is parked in a obvious no parking zone. Maybe they will get the hint if they come out and their sports car isn't there. It is a very frustrating situation dealing beside inconsiderate people but that's why there are rules that call for to be enforced by the condo association. Check with the condo association about the rules and who you can contact to remove vehicle when they impede your access to the garage.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Sorry, but your daughter is responsible for the accident.
You will mostlikely get stuck with paying but conceivably able to not pay anything or at most 1/2 is in attendance a sign, a copy of hoa
restrictions on parking there. You should have call the police and the owner of the other car may have be sighted
for illegal parking, if he has parked it over the strip on your property,wittnesses of hearing the were told not to park in attendance.
and if they are friends and want to stay good friends offer 1/2
or nil.. if you go to court the judge next to the information i mentioned in hand wil rule no more but I don`t know less to pay...
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Sorry, but your daughter is responsible for the accident.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
You will mostlikely get stuck with paying but conceivably able to not pay anything or at most 1/2 is in attendance a sign, a copy of hoa
restrictions on parking there. You should have call the police and the owner of the other car may have be sighted
for illegal parking, if he has parked it over the strip on your property,wittnesses of hearing the were told not to park in attendance.
and if they are friends and want to stay good friends offer 1/2
or nil.. if you go to court the judge next to the information i mentioned in hand wil rule no more but I don`t know less to pay...
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Answers: la428 sweetheart -- the reason he can't "see" that is because you are insensible wrong, as are several others here. I haven't time to point out all your absurdities, but e.g. you read aloud that 'legally speaking that has zilch to do with fault within an accident.' Obviously you've never heard of the concept of 'contributory negligence.' Even if the entity backing out has some liability (and that would enjoy to be determined in court) the driver of a car dishonestly parked is BY DEFINITION guilty of contributory negligence. Also how is having HEADLIGHTS on going to help when you are BACKING OUT of a garage?? ...duh...(possibly you expected TAILIGHTS, but I guess you don't know your front from your behind)
Yet another of your absurdities is your reference to a child contained by the area -- the difference, doll, is that the child has a RIGHT to be in attendance -- the car does not...duh...
If the author of the question is 'delusional' afterwards I guess I am too, despite my 13 years experience practicing law. Now run along child and do your homework: leave the endorsed analysis to the pros.
Sorry, it does not matter if the vehicle was off the record parked. She hit a stationary object. She should have made better use of her mirrors. Supposing she struck a pedestrian who be J-walking or not using the cross walk, she would be responsible for that loss as well.
We call out insurance company and surprisingly, their representative said WE would be responsible for the damage -- even though the car have no business being parked there. His claim be that, by LAW, "since my daughter's car was moving and the scofflaw's coup¨¦ was parked, it couldn't possibly be his fault"
So our company has to payment for violation of condo park rules, and our insurance rates are going to go up besides.
Can I come to blows this?
How do the unmarked yorkers spread give...
You give the impression of being to have the opinion that it's ok for you to wreck other peoples property. C'mon now, look at it from the other side.Would you think it's ok for someone to do it to you ? Golden Rule !Not really, regardless of what hitch in the path is, hand is responsible to maintain control and avoid collision. If there be not enough room to safely procure your vehicle out then the vehicle can be towed if it is parked in a obvious no parking zone. Maybe they will get the hint if they come out and their sports car isn't there. It is a very frustrating situation dealing beside inconsiderate people but that's why there are rules that call for to be enforced by the condo association. Check with the condo association about the rules and who you can contact to remove vehicle when they impede your access to the garage.
Sorry, it does not matter if the vehicle was off the record parked. She hit a stationary object. She should have made better use of her mirrors. Supposing she struck a pedestrian who be J-walking or not using the cross walk, she would be responsible for that loss as well.
I bought my saloon surrounded by California....
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Cheapest saloon insurance uk desperate!?
Doesn`t matter if the car is parked reasonably or not. You still hit another vehicle. A car is a big thing to not see, and close to your ins co said . You hit a parked car, it`s not like it snuck up aft you and jumped in the route. You may want to be more carefull backing out. Make arrangements with the condo to post no parking and tow signs, and see if they enforce the rules. But ultimately you are still responsible. Sorry No, you can't. The insurance company is right. You might not enjoy to pay as much as might have if he weren't parked criminally, but the operator of the moving vehicle is the negligent get-together nearly 85% of the time.
Doesn`t matter if the car is parked reasonably or not. You still hit another vehicle. A car is a big thing to not see, and close to your ins co said . You hit a parked car, it`s not like it snuck up aft you and jumped in the route. You may want to be more carefull backing out. Make arrangements with the condo to post no parking and tow signs, and see if they enforce the rules. But ultimately you are still responsible. Sorry
How can i stop this sexist outrage?
Not really, regardless of what hitch in the path is, hand is responsible to maintain control and avoid collision. If there be not enough room to safely procure your vehicle out then the vehicle can be towed if it is parked in a obvious no parking zone. Maybe they will get the hint if they come out and their sports car isn't there. It is a very frustrating situation dealing beside inconsiderate people but that's why there are rules that call for to be enforced by the condo association. Check with the condo association about the rules and who you can contact to remove vehicle when they impede your access to the garage.
Does anyone know of any vehicle extended...
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Help beside driving exam? pleezzzz =)?
Sorry, but your daughter is responsible for the accident.
Does your insurance rate dance up even...
Who know the numbert to Nationsbank of...
You will mostlikely get stuck with paying but conceivably able to not pay anything or at most 1/2 is in attendance a sign, a copy of hoa
restrictions on parking there. You should have call the police and the owner of the other car may have be sighted
for illegal parking, if he has parked it over the strip on your property,wittnesses of hearing the were told not to park in attendance.
and if they are friends and want to stay good friends offer 1/2
or nil.. if you go to court the judge next to the information i mentioned in hand wil rule no more but I don`t know less to pay...
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
I Need Help Filing a Claim For...
If the vehicle was parked and could not be seen and you can prove it, hence the use vehicles cannot be parked there you hold a chance. Example if someone parks their vehicle on an alley style and the vehicle stick into the alley way and a driver driving trough the nouns way slowly scratches his vehicle and damages the parked one. The city will charge the parked vehicle beside illegal parking, and will be responsible for the damages that the driver en cured because the driver new the vehicle could be driven contained by the alley way but the individual that parked the vehicle prevented the alley way from be safe to drive on. Is true that as drivers we should check where we are exiting or surroundings over adjectives but is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by laws and over adjectives laws. My advise consult a attorney but only if you do have evidence of describing them about the illegal parking, where on earth the vehicle was parked and if it was not evident. OH if it happened withing the condo is a private matter so look within to that too.Sorry, but your daughter is responsible for the accident.
Have you notice more sports car ins...
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
Is it worthwhile to procure distance insurance...
Just because it was parked without permission does not give you the right to back into it. As you stated, you know people parked there so you should own been aware of the possibility there may enjoy been a "scofflaw" in that spot. Maybe they can put some benign of barrier or something there to prevent this going on in the future. In the aim time.your daughter is responsible for the crash.You will mostlikely get stuck with paying but conceivably able to not pay anything or at most 1/2 is in attendance a sign, a copy of hoa
restrictions on parking there. You should have call the police and the owner of the other car may have be sighted
for illegal parking, if he has parked it over the strip on your property,wittnesses of hearing the were told not to park in attendance.
and if they are friends and want to stay good friends offer 1/2
or nil.. if you go to court the judge next to the information i mentioned in hand wil rule no more but I don`t know less to pay...
Many adjusters will steal the position that your's has as 1) it's easier then spending time arguing negligence against the other do and/or 2) They don't have enough experience to know that an illicitly parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
Your state laws really come into play but bare that, if it can be shown that the operator of the other vehicle knowingly (should hold known) that they were placing their vehicle in a harmful location, then they could have some liability. Usually areas are flawed as "no parking'. They are marked for a reason... becuase it's risky to park in those areas. As such, if a person still parks in attendance, they are _assuming some risk_. as mentioned above, this liability is pretty low, depending on the situation.
BTW- Ask your adjuster _what_ law makes a moving vehicle 100% liable contained by an accident. Also, ask how this "law" over-rides contributory/comparative negligence. You will probably need to speak to a supervisor.
Ultimately it's your carrier choice to pay 100% of the claim or not. This does not bar you from attempting to collect a small portion of your loss from the other person's delivery service.
The point almost everyone here seems to be missing is that the owner of the parked car is clearly at least possible partially responsible. As wiseorno points out." it is also the responsibility of other drivers to ensure that they do not endanger others by irresponsibly refusing to abide by by law and over all laws."
Todd C's answer is also exceedingly much to the point;
"Many adjusters will take the position that your's has as 1) it's easier later spending time arguing negligence against the other party and/or 2) They don't have ample experience to know that an illegally parked vehicle _could_ have some liability placed against it.
... if it can be shown that the worker of the other vehicle knowingly (should have known) that they be placing their vehicle in a dangerous location, afterwards they could have some liability. USUALLY AREAS MARKED AS 'NO PARKING'...ARE MARKED FOR A REASON...BECAUSE IT'S DANGEROUS TO PARK IN THOSE AREAS. [my emphasis]
The guy who appealed to the "golden rule" is too laughable to make it worth commenting on.
What if the daughtert have had to leave particularly quickly because of a medical emergency, and the parked car resulted within her or someone else in the family's death because she couldn't catch to the hospital in time? THINK people...
The best that can be said for the naysayers is don't make a contribution up your day jobs to practice directive.
Your daughter is absolutely at fault here- no getting around it. How on floor can you not see that?
What if it was a child between those two garages that night? What if someone disappeared a big box there? What if a dog ran through at hand?
How on earth you can not see that your daughter is responsible for having her headlights on and seeing where on earth shes going. You cant just "assume" that a space that usually is empty is. Just similar to even though you know there is nothing contained by your driveway.. you should still chekc your rearview mirror before you back out b/c you never know what little child man run by.
Sorry.. but if you cant see whys shes at bad habit here.. your delusional. I understand the person be parked illegally.. but.. legally speaking.. that have nothing to do with blemish in an accident. ask any cop, any insurance company. this isnt worth combat over.
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
I am 17 years ancient, If I...
Thats BS!! It should not of even been there so your daughter could not of hit it. I read aloud it is his fault! But who am I? Its probably not worth taking to court?
I asked this interrogate early in the...
Answers: la428 sweetheart -- the reason he can't "see" that is because you are insensible wrong, as are several others here. I haven't time to point out all your absurdities, but e.g. you read aloud that 'legally speaking that has zilch to do with fault within an accident.' Obviously you've never heard of the concept of 'contributory negligence.' Even if the entity backing out has some liability (and that would enjoy to be determined in court) the driver of a car dishonestly parked is BY DEFINITION guilty of contributory negligence. Also how is having HEADLIGHTS on going to help when you are BACKING OUT of a garage?? ...duh...(possibly you expected TAILIGHTS, but I guess you don't know your front from your behind)
Yet another of your absurdities is your reference to a child contained by the area -- the difference, doll, is that the child has a RIGHT to be in attendance -- the car does not...duh...
If the author of the question is 'delusional' afterwards I guess I am too, despite my 13 years experience practicing law. Now run along child and do your homework: leave the endorsed analysis to the pros.
Sorry, it does not matter if the vehicle was off the record parked. She hit a stationary object. She should have made better use of her mirrors. Supposing she struck a pedestrian who be J-walking or not using the cross walk, she would be responsible for that loss as well.
Resolved Questions
- How verbs my hoary cars registration number...
- What if you don't saloon your public...
- Car happenstance!?
- How long does it rob for an...
- Collision/Auto repair & my rights surrounded...
- What happen if your private number plate...
- Driving module (first time)?
- Im taking my drivers permet question paper...
- Will my motor insurance travel up?
- Cheapest coupé insurance?