Good change in small claims court?

[matthar924]

What is the name of your state? Maryland

About a week ago, I was attempting to exit a gas station when a vehicle backed into the side of my car, striking my rear front fender and front passenger door with the rear right of his vehicle. His car seemed to suffer very little damage. All I noticed was a crack in his rear bumper, but I didn't look very hard at his car either. His insurance company denied my claim, and my company denied his due to Maryland's lovely Contributory Negligence clause. I do not carry collision coverage on my vehicle due to it's age.

I have decided to get an estimate of the damages, take lots of pictures, and file the necessary paperwork to sue him in small claims court. I really don't know what my chances of winning are. It's his word against mine, and is exactly why both of our claims were denied...our stories differed too much. I know that he did lie to both companies, but I cannot prove that. I think it's pretty clear that he should have paid more attention, especially when backing a vehicle. He was also talking on his cell phone when he got out of the car and walked directly into the gas station before even approaching me. He did have a passenger, but he didn't seem to be very bright when I questioned him.

My guess is that if he does have collision insurance, his company will try to get me to drop the case, and if I do not, they will then try to settle out of court. I'm simply looking to prove that he did, in fact, strike my vehicle with his, and that he could've avoided a collision had he actually been paying attention.

Any ideas are greatly appreciated. Thank YouWhat is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?

 

[ecmst12]

If there were no independent witnesses, and you do not have any evidence to prove that you did not contribute even 1% to the accident, then the outcome in court will be the same as with the other insurance company. Your word vs his word, you each pay for your own damages and go on your way.

 

[JustAPal00]

It sounds to me that the side of your car was damaged and the rear of his was. Since he seems to have already admitted that there was some sort of collision between you. I would just make the point that you would have had to have been traveling at a great rate of speed to have gotten your car to slide sideways into his to cause the damage, or he must have backed into you. Let the judge decide! Good luck!

 

[matthar924]

If there were no independent witnesses, and you do not have any evidence to prove that you did not contribute even 1% to the accident, then the outcome in court will be the same as with the other insurance company. Your word vs his word, you each pay for your own damages and go on your way.

I agree with you but**************The only way to eliminate my contribution to the accident is to not have even been at that place at that time....which obviously is not possible. In court, I need to only prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the young man that struck my vehicle with his, actually did so, and by backing up..he did so without taking proper care. I'll take the odds of proving 51% vs. proving 99% fault. Then I'll let the judge decide who is at fault. Any other facts that I might add in court simply become a matter of my own opinion and wouldn't do much good anyway. Plus...I'm sure it's easier for the judge to make a decision based on the demeanors of the parties involved...since I know that the guy that hit me lied to both insurance companies...it will be interesting to see how he reacts in court.

As far as the other posting is concerned...I agree...how in the world would I gain enough speed to stunt slide my car right into the back corner of his car.

The reason I am inclined to follow through with this small claims suit is because I was sued about two years ago by a gentleman that clearly lied under oath, and then his lawyer tried to bail him out. The man claimed neck and back injuries from hitting me in a miata with his 1982 half ton dodge ram pickup truck. He was suing me for 10k. I clearly felt that the accident was my fault...the nose of my car was sticking out in the roadway just past parked vehicles, and he failed to avoid a collision...but he did have the right of way under the so called "boulevard rule". It just turns out that his $300 repair bill that was written on the back of a napkin was no match for my official $800 repair bill for the miata...thus..he walked away with nothing!

So, my thinking isn't that I'm trying to exact revenge upon someone else for my past experiences, rather, the point is that that man struck my vehicle with his and in doing so he failed to avoid an accident. Neither one of us had witnesses, and it was his word against mine, yet the evidence did not add up to his favor, such as in my current predicament.

 

[ecmst12]

51% is not what you have to prove, according to your state's laws. If you prove he was 51% at fault, you still get nothing because of your 49% contribution. You have to prove that he was 100% at fault.

 

[You Are Guilty]

It's a matter of proof. Subpoena his cell phone records from the day of the accident to show he was on the phone at the time, then subpoena the video from the gas station that shows him backing into you while yakking on the phone.

Absent that evidence, pray for a really sympathetic judge.

 

[moburkes]

My guess is that if he does have collision insurance,

What does his collision have to do with your case?

 

[MikeKV]

Just to clarify, the other driver was backing out of a parking spot while you were in a lane exiting a gas station, correct? Seems to me that the driver backing out of a parking spot has FULL responsibility for yielding to traffic in the lane. Is that correct?

I was in a parking lot accident (other driver's fault) a few months ago and that's exactly how it was determined by both our insurance companys. A lady was backing out of her spot and didn't yield to me passing her rear of the car. The lady and her insurance co assumed FULL responsibility.

 

[ecmst12]

You are right, but it all depends on what the other driver's side of the story is. If the 2 statements conflict, and there's no evidence to indicate which one is lying, then in most cases both carriers will deny the claim from the other party, and each driver will end up being responsible for his own damage. Remember that if you sue someone, the burden of proof is on YOU to show they were at fault; if it's just word vs word, then unless the other person is seriously un-credible for some reason, the judge is going to have to find in favor of the defendant.

 

[matthar924]

Just to clarify, the other driver was backing out of a parking spot while you were in a lane exiting a gas station, correct? Seems to me that the driver backing out of a parking spot has FULL responsibility for yielding to traffic in the lane. Is that correct?

I was in a parking lot accident (other driver's fault) a few months ago and that's exactly how it was determined by both our insurance companys. A lady was backing out of her spot and didn't yield to me passing her rear of the car. The lady and her insurance co assumed FULL responsibility.

The other driver did not pull into a parking spot per se. He pulled forward out of the pump by by about 2 car lenths and into an area near the corner of the gas station. I then pulled forward to exit the gast station and was not even near his vehicle until he started backing up until he struck me. It seemed to me that he pulled out of the pump because he was done pumping, although I did not witness him at the pump. There was no reason for me to suspect that after pulling forward that far, that he intended on backing up into the pump area again. Either way, that part is irrelevant as I cannot prove what his intentions were. I can't even prove that he was not using caution as he backed up...except that it is very obvious that I have serious damage to my vehicle as a result of him striking me with the rear of his vehicle.

 

[matthar924]

It's a matter of proof. Subpoena his cell phone records from the day of the accident to show he was on the phone at the time, then subpoena the video from the gas station that shows him backing into you while yakking on the phone.

Absent that evidence, pray for a really sympathetic judge.

The gas station claims that their camera's are inoperable, and therefore just fake. Guess I'm SOL on that part.