Home     Law Advice     Insurance Advice     Community    
Environmental & Toxic Torts : Includes Asbestos, Chemicals, Mesothelioma, Mold
Go Back   FreeAdvice Legal Forum > ACCIDENT AND INJURY LAW > Environmental & Toxic Torts

Powered by Attorney Pages


  Find An Attorney In Your Area    
 

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-25-2008, 03:20 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2

additional statutes?


I had stopped in the road to parallel park my car into an empty metered parking space. After I stopped, I looked behind me to verify there was no car behind me then proceeded to back into (parallel park) the space. As I was backing my car into the space I was hit, or I hit, a car that had popped up behind me. I never saw the car approaching. I believe it turned into the driving lane from an adjacent parking lot which has an exit within 20 feet of the location where the accident occurred.

The insurance company has deemed this accident to be my fault citing AZ statute:
28-891. Backing limitations
A. The driver of a vehicle shall not back the vehicle unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and without interfering with other traffic.

Adherence to this statute would prohibit access to probably 90% of parallel parking spaces in an urban setting like Tempe, AZ in which this accident occurred.
Is there another statute which would require a driver to allow a car to parallel park, even though they are obstructing forward progress of traffic in that lane?

Both cars were insured by State Farm in Arizona. I’m assuming I have a higher deductible ($1,000) then the other driver whic could be a factor in their determination of fault.
  #2  
Old 12-25-2008, 04:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somnambulist University
Posts: 39,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by denright00 View Post
Is there another statute which would require a driver to allow a car to parallel park, even though they are obstructing forward progress of traffic in that lane?
If they in fact hit you while YOU were in 'possession' of the traffic lane, that COULD be a 'failure to yield right of way' (to you).
However, for that to apply, would require you to successfully argue that you had 'possession' of the lane when they approached and hit you.
If they were stationary and you backed into them while trying to parallel park, forget that 'defense' option.
__________________
There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution).

Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport!
  #3  
Old 12-25-2008, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 17,782
Any reversing vehicle must always yield to traffic moving forward. Posession of the lane is irrelevent, a reversing vehicle CAN NOT have the right of way over one going forward.

This doesn't remove access to parking spaces, it merely means you can't start backing up until it is safe to do so. It also means you should make sure that you can SEE behind you before you start backing up.
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.



IMPORTANT NOTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM. Thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed questions and answers in 130 legal categories are to be found at the Question and Answer pages at FreeAdvice.com.

F
reeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.