| silvertable58 |
| So my car got hit in a parking lot a month ago..lady gives me her info . i go do the police report. she goes does hers..i call my insurance...my insurance tells me she denies ever hiting me... i tell them she gave me her info ..she went to do the police report..my insurance says she still denies hiting me..i call her insurance.. her insurance backs her up..who will win. |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
| id question what she said in her police report. if i were the insurance company, id find it odd for 2 people to write out police reports and one of then denies hitting anything. since she denys it, it might be a 50/50 at best:dunno: |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
| well i guess you could always go to her house and hit her car a few times with a base ball bat. just make sure you hit lots of different spots so the car gets damaged everywhere. Then hopefully you will write her car off and she will be without a car for a while. It will help get one more bad driver off the streets |
|
|
| Answermid |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
well i guess you could always go to her house and hit her car a few times with a base ball bat. just make sure you hit lots of different spots so the car gets damaged everywhere. Then hopefully you will write her car off and she will be without a car for a while. It will help get one more bad driver off the streets
:lol: |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by silvertable58
So my car got hit in a parking lot a month ago..lady gives me her info . i go do the police report. she goes does hers..i call my insurance...my insurance tells me she denies ever hiting me... i tell them she gave me her info ..she went to do the police report..my insurance says she still denies hiting me..i call her insurance.. her insurance backs her up..who will win.
The cop didn't take pictures of what happened to your vehicles?
It will depend on what she said in her police report - if she denies ever hitting you then I guess you'll be in some trouble if there is no evidence.
Your problem is with the police officer at this point - when you went in accusing her of hitting you they should have at least went out and inspected her vehicle and seen if there was any damage. If there was damage, then they should have made her fill out an accident report.
I would clarify with your insurance company as to what she said in her police report - it seems odd you'd go in to do one and they'd let her get away with saying nothing happened without visually inspecting her vehicle.
If insurance fails, I would take her to small claims court. She will have to explain to a judge why she gave you her insurance info. if she denies ever hitting you. |
|
|
| rythex |
| Threaten to take her to court. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
The cop didn't take pictures of what happened to your vehicles?
It will depend on what she said in her police report - if she denies ever hitting you then I guess you'll be in some trouble if there is no evidence.
Your problem is with the police officer at this point - when you went in accusing her of hitting you they should have at least went out and inspected her vehicle and seen if there was any damage. If there was damage, then they should have made her fill out an accident report.
I would clarify with your insurance company as to what she said in her police report - it seems odd you'd go in to do one and they'd let her get away with saying nothing happened without visually inspecting her vehicle.
If insurance fails, I would take her to small claims court. She will have to explain to a judge why she gave you her insurance info. if she denies ever hitting you.
You're either assuming cops came out to the scene or you're misunderstanding the system.
Cops won't generally go out and investigate an auto-accident after the fact if you show up and fill out a report.
Use your good friend "Freedom of Information" to get a copy of her report. If still nothing happens and your insurance refuses to budge, change providers then slap both her and your insurance company with a lawsuit and charge your company with theft. Afterall, if your insurance company is charging you for a service (ie Auto Insurance) and then refuses to provide you with that service, they're guilty of fraud (in the eyes of the crown for charging for something and then not providing), and then they're also guilty of theft, for taking your money for nothing.
They can either provide you with your service, or give you back every penny you've paid that wasn't for PLPD. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
You're either assuming cops came out to the scene or you're misunderstanding the system.
Cops won't generally go out and investigate an auto-accident after the fact if you show up and fill out a report.
Both parties went to the police to fill out a report. I would assume that if one party said he was hit and the other party denies it, at the very least the police would inspect the car of the person who denies it when they go to fill out their police report :dunno: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Both parties went to the police to fill out a report. I would assume that if one party said he was hit and the other party denies it, at the very least the police would inspect the car of the person who denies it when they go to fill out their police report :dunno:
As dumb as this sounds....not usually. Your case where they ordered you to get your car checked was obscure (and retarded IMO), but you'll notice even then they didn't come out and look at your car, just made you take it in. |
|
|
| ohboyitsme |
| Is it only for over $1000 they come out and look and give you the sticker for your car? When I was in an accident and filed the police report they came out looked at the car, marked the damage on the sticker and gave it to me for my window. |
|
|
| Fazda |
| were there any witnesses? |
|
|
| robyn402 |
| is it always 50/50 resonsability in parking lots? don't mean to jack |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by robyn402
is it always 50/50 resonsability in parking lots? don't mean to jack
Most of the time. In a parking lot, despite what anyone says, NO ONE has right of way. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Most of the time. In a parking lot, despite what anyone says, NO ONE has right of way.
There are 2 rules at work in parking lots:
1) if you can avoid the accident, you have the responsiblity to avoid the accident. If you don't, you're partly at fault regardless of whether or not the law says you were in the right.
2) you have to operate with due diligence.
So basically, if you see someone backing up, but say "fuck you bitch, I'm driving here" and she hits you, you share fault. If there's a car behind you, completely stopped and boxed in, and you back into it, you're at fault for not exercising due dilligence.
Most parking lot accidents go 50/50 because people don't get witnesses. You get 3 or 4 solid witnesses, and usually blame will be laid somewhere.
So while I agree most work out to be 50/50, very few really are. Someone usually screwed up. |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
There are 2 rules at work in parking lots:
1) if you can avoid the accident, you have the responsiblity to avoid the accident. If you don't, you're partly at fault regardless of whether or not the law says you were in the right.
2) you have to operate with due diligence.
So basically, if you see someone backing up, but say "fuck you bitch, I'm driving here" and she hits you, you share fault. If there's a car behind you, completely stopped and boxed in, and you back into it, you're at fault for not exercising due dilligence.
Most parking lot accidents go 50/50 because people don't get witnesses. You get 3 or 4 solid witnesses, and usually blame will be laid somewhere.
So while I agree most work out to be 50/50, very few really are. Someone usually screwed up.
i almost got into an accident about a week ago in a parking lot where i was letting someone back out. in the process of backing out, this car beside mine starts to back out. were they to hit me, who would be at fault? the person who stopped to let people get out, or the person not looking back? |
|
|
| ehos |
50/50
It's always going to be 50/50 unless someone admits fault, or there happens to be a ton of willing witnesses. Cops aren't going to give 2 shits about a parking lot accident (low speed, low damage) unless something SERIOUS happens.
Like a guy practicing his drifiting in a parking lot...
50/50 |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
50/50
It's always going to be 50/50 unless someone admits fault, or there happens to be a ton of willing witnesses. Cops aren't going to give 2 shits about a parking lot accident (low speed, low damage) unless something SERIOUS happens.
Like a guy practicing his drifiting in a parking lot...
50/50
isnt it supposed to be whoever backs out is always at fault depending on how far they are out? |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
isnt it supposed to be whoever backs out is always at fault depending on how far they are out?
It's all about proof - you will have to prove that the person had their car in reverse at the time, which with some accidents may be next to impossible (As each of you will tell a different story). I believe (And I don't have the regulation handy) that if someone is in reverse then they will be deemed at fault (According to insurance regulations).
Two identical situations can have different results based on the reports of the drivers, witness statements and the adjustors on the case.
A traffic accident is more cut and dry - a parking lot can have many variables/arguements involved because of the lack of traffic control devices. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
i almost got into an accident about a week ago in a parking lot where i was letting someone back out. in the process of backing out, this car beside mine starts to back out. were they to hit me, who would be at fault? the person who stopped to let people get out, or the person not looking back?
If you had witnesses, you would be in the clear I would say. One moving vehicle hit a stationary vehicle. Pretty hard to blame you for that. But you'll need 3 or 4 witnesses. |
|
|
| newaccorddriver |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
If you had witnesses, you would be in the clear I would say. One moving vehicle hit a stationary vehicle. Pretty hard to blame you for that. But you'll need 3 or 4 witnesses.
there wouldnt have been in any witness' at that time, but as far as the parking lot description goes, the only way they had out, was reverse. why is it that 3 or 4 witness' are needed rather then 1 or 2? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by newaccorddriver
there wouldnt have been in any witness' at that time, but as far as the parking lot description goes, the only way they had out, was reverse. why is it that 3 or 4 witness' are needed rather then 1 or 2?
Because half your witnesses won't show up to court. |
|
|
| kevito_ |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Because half your witnesses won't show up to court.
Yeah I hate that... especially if you know them and they still pass you the shaft on the court date :S |
|
|
|
