A car hit my parked car while I was parked in a RED zone? Any thoughts?

[superjadex12]

This occured in California.

I was dropping off a pizza to a small baseball park, there were no parking spaces in the small lot so I parked on the opposite end of the curb, parallel to the street. Note that this curb was RED .

(curb)
----------------
| | |y | | |

-------X-----
(curb)


The above marks the parking spots and the X is where I parked which was a RED curb. The Y is the lady's car.

I got out, delivered the pizza, and came back in about 4 minutes.

What happend was a women was parked in a parking spot and backed out and had bumped into my
driver side door. With her huge SUV it made quite and impression.

She stated she would not be liable because I was parked in a Red Zone.

My insurance agent said "that is not necessarily the case".

But what is the definitive answer ? I would appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

P.S. Since I only have liablity insurance, I would need to take the claim up with the other party's insurance company. This is why I would like to know If I have a case.What is the name of your state?

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by superjadex12

This occured in California.

I was dropping off a pizza to a small baseball park, there were no parking spaces in the small lot so I parked on the opposite end of the curb, parallel to the street. Note that this curb was RED .

(curb)
----------------
| | |y | | |

-------X-----
(curb)


The above marks the parking spots and the X is where I parked which was a RED curb. The Y is the lady's car.

I got out, delivered the pizza, and came back in about 4 minutes.

What happend was a women was parked in a parking spot and backed out and had bumped into my
driver side door. With her huge SUV it made quite and impression.

She stated she would not be liable because I was parked in a Red Zone.

My insurance agent said "that is not necessarily the case".

But what is the definitive answer ? I would appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

P.S. Since I only have liablity insurance, I would need to take the claim up with the other party's insurance company. This is why I would like to know If I have a case.What is the name of your state?

Q: A car hit my parked car while I was parked in a RED zone? Any thoughts?

A: Yes. There is no such thing as negligent parking. "She stated she would not be liable because I was parked in a Red Zone." That is so much pig gristle.

[CdwJava]

Ditto SeniorJudge's reply.

However, HER insurance company may try to alleviate a small percentage of the guilt due to the illegal parking by arguing that had the car been parked legally, no collision would have occurred. It's weak, but insurance companies have their own way of establishing fault.

Heck, I have seen courts rule a person criminally liable, and the insurance companies turn around and hold that same person only 10% liable ... go figure.

- Carl

[CalifAtty-1]

My response:

Parking in a red zone is between you and the local authority. It has nothing to do with her negligence; i.e., she doesn't have the right to play "bumper cars" with your vehicle, or anything else that may have been in her way. Her duty is to make sure that her path is clear and that she can make her backing movement in safety.

She doesn't get to piggy-back on any municipal laws, that you may have violated, as a defense to her actions.

Go get her.

IAAL

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Q: A car hit my parked car while I was parked in a RED zone? Any thoughts?

A: Yes. There is no such thing as negligent parking. "She stated she would not be liable because I was parked in a Red Zone." That is so much pig gristle.

Didn't we already go through this once before?

Really now.

[url]http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA2/42CA2d521.htm[/url]
[url]http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA2/7CA2d77.htm[/url]

Richards v. Stanley (1954) [43 Cal.2d 60]

Or google "negligent parking"

Not saying it supports the OP or not, just that "negligent parking" is a real thing.

[CdwJava]

Yep. That is why one can never tell. While a police report for the collision would put the backing vehicle clearly at fault, a civil court and the insurance companies are free to make decisions on entirely different criteria. It's one of the reasons that i wonder why we take collision reports in the first place ... since they are really about gathering info for insurance companies, why should the police be doing this?

Oh well ...

- Carl

[CalifAtty-1]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Didn't we already go through this once before?

Not saying it supports the OP or not, just that "negligent parking" is a real thing.

My response:

Your cases need to be Shepardized. Here are more recent cases, and in these cases, we're talking about "proximate cause."

P swerved her bicycle to clear D's parked car and was struck by another car. Although D was in violation of a local ordinance by parking too long in a loading zone, a negligence per se instruction was not warranted. The ordinance was designed to give motorists access to curb space for loading or unloading; it was not intended to prevent injury to motorists or bicyclists. Moreover, the violation did not proximately cause P's injury: She would have had to swerve around D's car even if it was not parked past the maximum time limit. [Capolungo v. Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346, 353-355, 224 Cal.Rptr. 326, 330-332]

D parked illegally on the sidewalk to show P his new compact disk player. While the two were standing behind the automobile, another vehicle careened onto the sidewalk, striking P. Here again, negligence per se was inapplicable: The statute prohibiting parking on the sidewalk (Ca Vehicle § 22500(f)) was designed to prevent obstruction of pedestrian traffic and injury to pedestrians that might occur when a pedestrian (a) walks around the vehicle and is injured by another hazard, (b) walks into the vehicle or (c) is struck when the vehicle is put in motion. The statute was not designed to prevent the type of occurrence that injured P--i.e., being struck on the sidewalk by a vehicle other than the illegally parked vehicle. [Victor v. Hedges (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 229, 234-238, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 470-473]

A pedestrian who, while walking on the sidewalk across the street from a school parking lot, was struck by a student who negligently "peeled out" of the lot on the last day of school could not establish negligence per se by invoking the school district's duty to hold "pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school" (Ca Educ § 44807). The purpose of the statute was to prevent disorderly and dangerous practices likely to result in physical injury to immature students; it was not intended to protect members of the general public who were not even on school property. [Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 938, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 819]

In our writer's situation, we can use the "but for" question. But for the defendant backing out, and not seeing what was behind her, would this accident have happened?

IAAL

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by CalifAtty-1

My response:

Your cases need to be Shepardized. Here are more recent cases, and in these cases, we're talking about "proximate cause."








In our writer's situation, we can use the "but for" question. But for the defendant backing out, and not seeing what was behind her, would this accident have happened?

IAAL

It wasn't that I was arguing against the OP, it is just that "negligent parking" is and has been a defense and/or illegal action in contrast to SJ's contention of:

There is no such thing as negligent parking.

Here again, not that I believe the OP is at fault, but in your examples, the decisions seem to be based upon the fact that the improper parking laws were not designed to prevent the action that took place. It would seem that the red zone was in fact designed to prevent just such an incident such as what happened with the OP. Does this change anything?

[CalifAtty-1]

Originally Posted by justalayman

It would seem that the red zone was in fact designed to prevent just such an incident such as what happened with the OP. Does this change anything?

My response:

No. The red zone is NOT designed for people who park their cars and then back up. They were designed for another purpose having nothing to do with the Defendant. Besides, illegally parking is NOT the "proximate cause" - - backing up and not seeing is the proximate cause of the incident and damages.

IAAL

[stephenk]

Red zones are for emergency vehicles - police, fire, ambulance.

So if she had backed into a police car she would be at fault but since the poster is a civilian he is at fault? Not logical.