family fenderbender = rift

[Arlee]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Ga

Is there a cut-and-dry law or ruling which could help solve the following family dispute? It involves a fenderbender on private property.

One family member owns property with two houses on it; these share a driveway. The owner does not live there, but rents one house to my sister and the other to our nephew and our nephew's wife. This sister is our nephew's favorite aunt and all lived in peace and harmony.

The shared driveway, which is Y-shaped, has room for two cars side-by-side on each prong of the Y, as well as gravelled spaces for 4 more cars beside the drive below the fork. There is no need for anyone, including visitors, to park in such a way as to block anyone in. My nephew and his wife park their cars on one end of the fork, my sister on the other.

The wife's mother used to visit the couple almost every day. She liked to park behind one of the couple's cars, but this would block my sister in. My sister asked her numerous times not to park that way, and she eventually began to comply. However, one night she again parked so that my sister was partially blocked. My sister did not realize that there was a visitor next door when she was leaving for the store. There is no light on the driveway and at night it is pitch-black. My sister backed up -- right into the rear fender of the in-law's car.

Sad to say, the incident and aftermath has divided the family. It involves everybody's favorite sister/aunt and everybody's favorite nephew/son's family and has gotten terribly complicated. I can see both sides. My sis had no reason to expect she was blocked in her own driveway, couldn't see the other car, and the visitor knew better than to park there. On the other hand, she hit the car, plain and simple.

My sis thought the fair thing would be to split the repair bill. The in-laws thought otherwise. A huge argument ensued. They presented a bill drawn up by a mechanic friend which we all knew was inflated by nearly double. However, had they contacted her insurance -- which, as a personal favor, they did not do -- they probably could have gotten more. Lots of debate followed.

Eventually apologies were made all round and my sister paid the bill in full. But the mother-in-law no longer is comfortable visiting, which makes the young wife very unhappy. So now the couple are moving away, which makes everyone unhappy. We rarely see them anymore as it is. There is an undercurrent of tension and resentment, with some still blaming my sister and others blaming the in-law.

Can anyone settle this for us? If we knew what was right by the law, I think the matter could be truly settled and forgotten. I realize this situation lends itself to ridicule, but any sincere, law-based advice will be truly appreciated.

Thank you,
Arlee

 

[JETX]

My sister backed up -- right into the rear fender of the in-law's car.

That is all that is needed. Your sister is 100% liable for the damages. The obligation is on her to not ASSUME that it is safe to back up... in any condition. What if there was a child playing behind her when she decided to backup without looking??

 

[Arlee]

I thought it might be as simple as that.

On the other hand, she didn't actually back up without looking. She did look. The problem was, the drive was completely dark, and the other car was a dark color. It also sits low to to the ground and was parked at an angle so as to be in my sister's blind spot. From the dim light of her backup lights and from her rearview mirrors, she simply could not see that a portion of the other car was behind her. Is that not a mitigating factor?

I'm also still bothered by the fact that the other driver had been told over and over not to park there BECAUSE it blocks the other car in. While my sister could not tell the car was there, the in-law KNEW she was blocking the other car.

Here I am asking for advice and seemingly not as willing to accept it as I thought. { I appreciate your post.

Does anyone else have any input for me?

Still confused,
Arlee

 

[JETX]

On the other hand, she didn't actually back up without looking. She did look.

Backup up without seeing, is the same as backing up without looking!!

The problem was, the drive was completely dark, and the other car was a dark color. It also sits low to to the ground and was parked at an angle so as to be in my sister's blind spot. From the dim light of her backup lights and from her rearview mirrors, she simply could not see that a portion of the other car was behind her. Is that not a mitigating factor?

Nope, not at all. Think about it.... if this accident happened out on the street, given the EXACT same scenario, it would STILL be her fault. And the fact that she KNEW "the drive was completely dark, and the other car was a dark color" only goes against her.

I'm also still bothered by the fact that the other driver had been told over and over not to park there BECAUSE it blocks the other car in. While my sister could not tell the car was there, the in-law KNEW she was blocking the other car.

That does not negate, or mitigate, the OBLIGATION that a driver has to be 100% positive that it is safe to back up BEFORE backing up.

Let me add.... that if it is as dark out there as everyone seems to know.... not only does that create a HIGHER obligation to be careful, but a futher claim could be made that 'someone' was negligent in not removing that 'known hazard' by providing sufficient lighting at night.

Again, what if there was a child, dressed in dark clothes, playing behind the car when that idiot failed to check??? Would the driver be less liable for injuries if she "told the child to never, ever wear dark clothes at night and play behind the car"??? Of course not.

Still confused

Or more accurately, 'still refusing to recognize fault'.

Bottom line....
The driver that is backing up has 100% responsibility to check for ANY hazards or dangers BEFORE starting to back up..... and is negligent if he/she doesn't do so.

 

[Arlee]

Backup up without seeing, is the same as backing up without looking!!

Seriously? Does the law actually say that? The one is accidental, while the other is willfully negligent. They are truly weighed the same in court?

Nope, not at all. Think about it.... if this accident happened out on the street, given the EXACT same scenario, it would STILL be her fault.

On the street, definitely her fault. Does private property, in her shared driveway, not make a legal distinction?

And the fact that she KNEW "the drive was completely dark, and the other car was a dark color" only goes against her.

How so? True, she knew the drive was dark, but she did look in the same manner as any reasonable person would. The other driver ALSO knew it was dark, and ALSO that her choice of position presented a hazard to/from the other car, all the more so in the dark.

How does knowing the other car was dark go against her? She didn't know the car was there.

That does not negate, or mitigate, the OBLIGATION that a driver has to be 100% positive that it is safe to back up BEFORE backing up.

I can see your point here.

Let me add.... that if it is as dark out there as everyone seems to know.... not only does that create a HIGHER obligation to be careful, but a futher claim could be made that 'someone' was negligent in not removing that 'known hazard' by providing sufficient lighting at night.

Yes, that is a point that came up. Of course, as the property is shared by the renters, my nephew would have had equal responsibility with my sister in seeing that a light was installed. Another argument was made quietly on all sides: that the landlord should have provided adequate lighting for the driveway. But as he is a relative providing excellent housing at an under-market-value rent for his family, we all agree it would be a crummy thing to lay any of it on him. Had the landlord been a disinterested third party, hmmmm, I think that would have been a convenient place to hang some blame.

Again, what if there was a child, dressed in dark clothes, playing behind the car when that idiot failed to check???

Name-calling is neither appropriate nor necessary. And again, she did check, although you argue that point above.

Would the driver be less liable for injuries if she "told the child to never, ever wear dark clothes at night and play behind the car"??? Of course not

Ummm, what is your deal with children? And if you must make this analogy, what if said child was sleeping behind the wheels and could NOT be seen? (That's rhetorical; please don't post an answer.)

Or more accurately, 'still refusing to recognize fault'.

Quite possibly. I do find I am arguing here more for my sister's side than I expected. Perhaps if you'd presented for the sister, I'd have brought up arguments for the in-law. I like to explain it as slavishly playing devil's advocate. Others might suggest it is neurotic indecisiveness... and I'd have to agree. That's why I'm on this site seeking specific, law-based points of view. We already have a plethora of arguable, personal opinions.

Bottom line....
The driver that is backing up has 100% responsibility to check for ANY hazards or dangers BEFORE starting to back up..... and is negligent if he/she doesn't do so.

That sounds quite reasonable. I could accept that. But to have a law or precedent to quote would quell any arguments for good. No one would like that better than me! I change sides while arguing with myself, all the more with members of the family.

JETX, I do thank you for taking an interest and answering my request for input. Does anyone else have any helpful to add?

Thanks,
Arlee

 

[LdiJ]

JETX, I do thank you for taking an interest and answering my request for input. Does anyone else have any helpful to add?

Thanks,
Arlee

I am going to give you the same answer he did, but in a different format. If your sister had turned it in to her insurance company, her insurance company would have found her to be at fault and would have paid the claim in full.
That is the legal answer that you were looking for...and an answer that settles the matter legally.

However the inlaw was a real jerk for parking in such a way as to block someone else in, particularly after she had been repeatedly asked not to do so. If she had the bill inflated by the garage, then she is an even bigger jerk. (however don't assume that's accurate, car repairs are truly out of sight these days). However, being a jerk doesn't always make someone legally wrong in an accident...in this case it doesn't.

I had a very similar accident. I parked my car in the garage. My ex came to my house to see our daughter every day after work (we are good friends). He constantly parked in my driveway, even though I asked him not to. (plenty of space available to park in front of my house) I often used that time to run errands, so I was constantly having to make him move his car so that I could go. Finally, he promised not to do it anymore. The next day I had to run an errand, I got in the car, hit the garage door opener and backed out without even looking...RIGHT into his car, which was once again in my driveway.

Despite the fact that he was an idiot for parking in the driveway when he had been repeatedly asked not to do so...the accident was STILL MY FAULT. My insurance had to cover it (and my agent and his staff got a BIG chuckle out of it).

HOWEVER.....he never has parked in my driveway again since, and its been 10 years...

 

[Arlee]

LdiJ:
Thanks for your answer. Yes, that does put the matter to rest. I imagine this sort of thing happens to a lot of people. Frustrating on either side, huh?
Thanks again,
Arlee