• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

additional statutes?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

denright00

Junior Member
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.
 


JETX

Senior Member
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.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
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.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top