Side mirror collision on road with parked cars on one side

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, bend, Decatur

pang
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Side mirror collision on road with parked cars on one side

Unread post by pang »

Who's at fault (if anyone)??
The road runs east to west. Cars are parked on the south side. There is room for two lanes of traffic plus the parked cars. I was driving west (north side) the other car was driving east (south side with parked cars). Instead of jumping the curb, I slowed down to 20kph in the hopes that the other vehicle would figure out there was plenty of room for both vehicles to pass (as there is even on garbage truck day), she didn't figure it out and the mirrors clipped cracking both. Other vehicle insists it's my fault because I didn't slow down / stop and wants to put the damage through on my insurance.
Is there any documentation in the OHTA that specifies this type of incident?
Thanks,


browsing
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined:

Unread post by browsing »

That's a good question. I'd imagine this falls under overtaking and passing. With no visible markings, you're allowed one-half of the roadway. Had the person been overtaking a section of parked cars and jumped into your half, they would clearly be at fault.

The question is when there's a large stretch of parked cars on one side where two vehicles are bound to meet, is the vehicle on the parked car side 100% liable at all times? Hopefully someone with more knowledge could chime in. I'd like to know the answer myself.


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys »

It depends on where you both were in your lane in relation to the center line when the collision happened.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


Marquisse
Member
Member
Posts: 139
Joined:

Unread post by Marquisse »

This is something I deal with constantly living on a street running north/south and street parking alternating on east/west sides of the street depending on which half of the month we're in. The way we all operate is that overtaking and passing rules apply, but from what I understand as well, the driver on the side of the parked cars must yield to the driver on the side without the parked cars if there is an opening between parked vehicles, and vice versa if the driver on the side of the parked vehicles is in the midst of a stretch of street offering no openings. The objective is to allow both vehicles to pass, with courtesy, and no collision. The courtesy novelty passed us by in the 70s, it seems. It also concerns where in the roadway you are. Because my street is residential and not quite but almost big enough to have two full lanes WITH the cars parked on the side (two small compact cars would fit effortlessly), a lot of people, especially the ignorant drivers, drive in the middle of the street and attempt to bully other drivers to stop. Of course, we stop because we want to ultimately avoid a collision. However, in the event that we cannot go anywhere and we're hit, the driver in the middle of the street is at fault as they're taking up more than their side of the road.

My neighbours and I have had endless problems with people because of this. I'm very interested in reading other responses to this as this is a daily grind for us and, because our street acts as a sort of throughfare between two major city streets, we get morons hogging the centre of the road doing 70 in a 40 zone.


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys »

If there's no painted lines on the road, I would say it falls under 148 (1) "Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free."

I would have laid the ticket for that (or careless) to the person who wasn't properly in their lane, which it sounds like was her, because of the parked cars. I don't accept that the parked cars are an excuse for her to cross into her lane to go, because she is not compelled to keep going. If she can't go forward and stay in her lane, then the onus is on her to wait until the way is clear form oncoming traffic before proceeding.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


pang
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Unread post by pang »

Thank you all for your replies on this one. No tickets were laid, nor were the police called (I'm sure they have more important things to attend to anyway), but she insists on putting the damaged mirror through my insurance. With no center line, no break in the line of parked cars but obvious encroachment into 'my' lane I don't suppose the impetus for me to jump the curb onto the sidewalk was necessary, though in hindsight it would have avoided the collision, yet potentially puncturing the tire which was already rubbing up against the concrete edging..
As the saying goes, sh*t happens, I accept the damage to my vehicle and will have mine repaired, should the incident be considered 'no fault'?


Marquisse
Member
Member
Posts: 139
Joined:

Unread post by Marquisse »

There isn't a way to prove it now, and in Ontario we have a no fault system by default. Her insurance will pay her damage, yours will pay for yours. That's the way it is, even if fault was determined by an officer at the scene. She, ultimately, wants someone other than *her* to pay for her damages. So, she can go through her insurance and the insurance companies can duke it out (I do not recommend this unless damage is substantial), or take you to court. You can offer a settlement in writing, ensuring that your letter is without prejudice if you wish to negotiate, but really, the only fair solution is for each to pay for their own damages. That would be my only offer.

If she continues to be difficult, tell her that you will not pay for her damages and you suggest that the matter be taken to small claims court. If she begins to correspond in writing, respond with a dispute letter. In our dispute letters (when mediation has failed) we say something like this "this letter shall hereby serve as formal dispute your claim and suggest the matter be referred to the courts." We also double up our dispute letter with a sort of cease and desist, demanding that the receiver cease and desist from all contact save and except for written correspondence through Canada Post, and only then to advise of impending court action or vacating the claim. Court is the only way to determine who will pay, as she can't make you. If you can, avoid insurance. If the amount is relatively minor, keep it out of insurance hands. You will suffer for 6 years or more if insurance decides to increase your premiums. For a relatively small repair bill, it is not worth it.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Unread post by hwybear »

pang wrote: I don't suppose the impetus for me to jump the curb onto the sidewalk was necessary, though in hindsight it would have avoided the collision, yet potentially puncturing the tire which was already rubbing up against the concrete edging
that ended up costing us a new tire and rim...but no scratch....and the other goof just kept on driving.




Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”