I was dropping off my son school the other morning in a parking lot area designated for dropping children off at school. Just a split second after he opened the door (rear, passenger side), another driver attempted to pass my vehicle on the right. The back of her driver's side rear view mirror made contact with the edge of my door, and she struck so hard that it knocked the door hinges around and the door has to be lifted slightly and then shut. No damage to the striker or latches. No bodily injuries, thank goodness. I saw the car and I hollered at my son "look out!", and he stayed in the car. Question is, though, if my vehicle was stationary, and the other vehicle was moving, who is likely to be assigned fault or negligence? Insurance claims are pending, but she had the audacity to file a claim against my insurance for her damages, even though her car hit mine.

Any feedback greatly appreciated.

I should mention that my son is 10, old enough to be able to exit a vehicle safely and get himself inside the school building, provided nobody is trying to make an unsafe maneuver.

Was the area the other car in, a traffic area, was this in a assigned or marked parking place. Was the other car in a marked or normal lane of traffic.

My guess and it is and it is a guess that both will be held resposible,
1. door should not be opened without making sure it was clear
2. other car should be watching for doors and students.

But this is one and I will assume no police report, you turn over to your insurance and let them decide who pays what

It will boil down to the two insurance companies working it out since it sounds like no accident report to the police was filed, right. I think you stand a good chance of getting money from her company but we do not know enough details. It may be possible, although your car was stopped, that your son opened the door as or after she began to pass you. Please come back and tell us what comes of this.

I say 50/50. It's a school drop off area so the other driver should have been more cautious. That driver's speed could also be a factor. On the other hand, a 10 year old should know to make sure it is 100% safe before exiting.

Apparently you saw the car in enough time to call out a warning to your son but he did not.

was the area the other car in, a traffic area, was this in a assigned or marked parking place. Was the other car in a marked or normal lane of traffic.

My guess and it is and it is a guess that both will be held resposible,
1. door should not be opened without making sure it was clear
2. other car should be watching for doors and students.

But this is one and I will assume no police report, you turn over to your insurance and let them decide who pays what

My car was in an assigned, unmarked area, designated for school dropoffs. Other car was not in a marked or normal lane of traffic. This is a school parking lot we're talking about. Police report was filed, but it was with campus police, he could not issue a citation or ticket to either party.

Apparently you saw the car in enough time to call out a warning to your son but he did not.

Ma'am, there's no way I could have seen the car in time to keep him from opening the door. He actually did heed my warning, he stayed in the car and didn't get hit by this lady.

What did the "Police report" say?

I'm a liability investigator - here's my very specific problem with the way you describe the accident. Her MIRROR struck your car door, not her bumper. It sounds to me like he opened the door into her car.

I now would "estimate" 75/25,75% being your fault.

Let us know how the insurance companies settle.

Sorry, "in a school parking lot" OK I have been in 100's and they all have marked assigned parking areas except for the drop off and pick up area with is along a side walk ( no one could drive up the right side of a car unless they are on a side walk)

So if there is traffic allowed to the right of the car and this is a normal area for cars to travel, then you car is 100 percent at fault for opening a door in front of the other car.

If this was a area not normally used for traffic, then it would go about 50/50

What did the "Police report" say?

I'm a liability investigator - here's my very specific problem with the way you describe the accident. Her MIRROR struck your car door, not her bumper. It sounds to me like he opened the door into her car.

I now would "estimate" 75/25,75% being your fault.

Let us know how the insurance companies settle.

The BACK of her mirror struck the inside of the car door, which means the door was already open when she tried to pass. You must not have children, one should NEVER try to pass a vehicle on the right, in a school parking lot. ;)

sorry, "in a school parking lot" ok I have been in 100's and they all have marked assigned parking areas except for the drop off and pick up area with is along a side walk ( no one could drive up the right side of a car unless they are on a side walk)

So if there is traffic allowed to the right of the car and this is a normal area for cars to travel, then you car is 100 percent at fault for opening a door in front of the other car.

If this was a area not normally used for traffic, then it would go about 50/50

I still don't understand the 50/50, if my car was stationary and her car was moving. My child was about to exit the vehicle to go inside the school building, which is something the other driver should have anticipated, being behind a stationary vehicle in a school parking lot. Sheesh. Posting here was a mistake, I'm just going to keep working her insurance company.

I still don't understand the 50/50, if my car was stationary and her car was moving. My child was about to exit the vehicle to go inside the school building, which is something the other driver should have anticipated, being behind a stationary vehicle in a school parking lot. Sheesh. Posting here was a mistake, I'm just going to keep working her insurance company.



Sheesh, not taking responsibility for your son's actions was a mistake. She should have anticipated him opening the door; you and your son should have anticipated a car might pass on the right.

Again, if you were in the right-hand lane, dropping your son off, was she on the sidewalk?

The BACK of her mirror struck the inside of the car door, which means the door was already open when she tried to pass. You must not have children, one should NEVER try to pass a vehicle on the right, in a school parking lot. ;)


I am not familiar with this law. Where is this the law? I am familiar with not opening a door into traffic. That IS a law in NY, at least.

Also, of course the back of her mirror struck your car. In order for the face of the mirror to strike your car she would have had to be driving backwards!

Again - I'm a liability investigator. You can argue all you want. She is not going to be 100% at fault - but we will all wait until this is settled and hope you keep us advised.

There are two issues here and I think my colleagues are focusing on the wrong one. I understand their position. If the back of the mirror hit your door then it was unsafe to open the door.

However, if you were stopped in a designated dropoff zone, then you are correct that the other driver had no business being there. And you had a reasonable expectation that she wouldn't be there. In that case, I would think she would be 75-100% liable. The reason you MIGHT be that 25% is because the physical evidence would seem to indicate the door was opened unsafely.

The thing I don't understand is why there is a traffic lane to the right of the dropoff zone. That's what Chuck was trying to point out. Any drop off zones I have seen are situated for the car to pull up to a curb so the passengers can exist from the passenger side. There should have been no way for her to pass on the right.

As to posting here being a mistake. Just because you didn't get the answer you thought you should doesn't mean we are wroing. The problem here is don't know what the dropoff zone looks like. If we had a map or picture, it might make a . Maybe you can use Google Maps to get a satellite picture that would show the dropoff zone.

So, to sum up. If the other car was in a traffic lane legally, then you at at least 50% responsible, probably more. If, she was not in a traffic lane, then she is 75-100% responsible.

But from a practical matter, what it likely to happen is your collision coverage will pay for the damage to your car and her liabiltiy coverage will pay your deductible. And your liability will pay her deductible and her collision will pay her damages, less deductible. So neither will incur any out of pocket expenses. The insurance carriers will likely take the path of least resistance and go 50-50. If you want anymore out of er carrier you will probably have to file suit.

Sorry you are not hearing what you want to hear, you have a accident investigator and a prior police officer and others telling you what happens in real life.

And most insurance merely settles because it is cheaper than fighting normally

[QUOTE=ScottGem;2097509]

However, if you were stopped in a designated dropoff zone, then you are correct that the other driver had no business being there. And you had a reasonable expectation that she wouldn't be there. In that case, I would think she would be 75-100% liable. The reason you MIGHT be that 25% is because the physical evidence would seem to indicate the door was opened unsafely.

The thing I don't understand is why there is a traffic lane to the right of the dropoff zone. That's what Chuck was trying to point out. Any drop off zones I have seen are situated for the car to pull up to a curb so the passengers can exist from the passenger side. There should have been no way for her to pass on the right.

That's just it, there is no traffic lane to the right of where my car was stopped. She had no business trying to pass. I (and my son) had a reasonable expectation that no vehicles would be trying to pass. On this particular campus, there is only one curbside dropoff, and there are 2 others that are drive through, stop, kid(s) exits vehicle, vehicle proceeds, and we were in one of those areas.

This is probably the most unbiased opinion I've gotten so far, thank you.

[QUOTE=Kate84;This is probably the most unbiased opinion I've gotten so far, thank you.[/QUOTE]


Why do you think anyone would be biased against you as opposed to simply stating opinions from the standpoint of an accident investigator and Police Officer?

sorry you are not hearing what you want to hear, you have a accident investigator and a prior police officer and others telling you what happens in real life.

And most insurance merley settles because it is cheaper than fighting normally

Cool, Chuck, I'll remember that next time I'm tired of waiting for someone's stupid kid to get out of their parents' car in a school parking lot. The car and the kid are free game. PERFECT. ;)

Ok Judy, perhaps this is the better answer

** how dare they almost kill your child. They should be sued for everything they have. They should buy you a brand new car and years of therapy.

You nened the best high priced lawyer you can find and you will be on easy street.

** sad, the legal system is far from right in many peoples vison and not fair by mans term, it is just legal, based on laws and reports.

We have not heard anything about a police report and if a officer, ( includeing the schools police officer) did a report on the incident placing blame.

If no report, it will go to he said / she said with really no evidence except that and the damage. In which cases unless the insurance company is just wanting to write a check, they will try and work out a deal, normally giving fault to each driver in a percentage.

I have investigated 100's of accidents and written almost as many tickets and reports placing blame or partcial blame.

Along with testifying in court to that.

You have never fully explained why cars are passing on the right of a drop of zone, in fact that could even throw the school at some liablity at creating an unsafe unloading zone. ** but insurance company will not address that.

But in general if a car is parked along the side of a road where cars pass, and someone in that car opens their door and a car moving hits it, the car that opened the door is normally at either equal if not greater fault.
That is just how it is. Like it or not

And I guess the kid may have learned to look backwards before they open a door, The moment they opened the door in the way of a moving car, they took some of the fault. And that fault moves to the parent in the case of a minor. Had that been a adult passenger, you could have sued them for damages

That's just it, there is no traffic lane to the right of where my car was stopped. She had no business trying to pass. I (and my son) had a reasonable expectation that no vehicles would be trying to pass. On this particular campus, there is only one curbside dropoff, and there are 2 others that are drive through, stop, kid(s) exits vehicle, vehicle proceeds, and we were in one of those areas.

OK. Under those circumstances she woould have to take the bulk if not all the liability. Except that one thing still bothers me. Why was there even room for her to pass? In a drop off like you describe I don't understand why there was room to pass on the right. My daughter's elementary school had something similar to what you describe. It was a circular driveway. Cars pulled into the driveway, ALONG THE RIGHT EDGE, discharged there passengers and drove forward to exit the other end. I just can't imagine why there would even be room for a vehicle to pass on the right. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And I believe that also bothers my colleagues.


This is probably the most unbiased opinion I've gotten so far, thank you.

I'm sorry but your attitude here leaves a lot to be desired. Everyone on this site VOLUNTEERS their time and expertise to help others. No one has given a "biased" opinion. They have given you the benefit of their knowledge and experience based on the information you posted. I can't find any bias or fault in their answers. And I think it is unfair and uncalled for of you to put down others simply because their assessment of the what you told them doesn't mesh with yours.

But here's the bottomline. My suspicion is that the insurance carriers are going to take the easy way out and just go 50-50. But, in doing so, neither of you will be out of pocket. If that happens and you don't like it, then you are going to have to take one or both the carriers to court. If you can prove that she had no business passing you on the right ad did so in violation of traffic patterns and safety warnings, then you should have a strong case.

Finally, I caution you against any further displays of attitude. If you don't like the advice given then ignore it. If you believe the advice is based on incorrect assumptions then point out where those assumptions are incorrect without putting down the poster. But any further disparaging remarks will be removed.

FrChuck, you ARE aware that OP just referred to her own child as stupid? One for the books!

"Cool, Chuck, I'll remember that next time I'm tired of waiting for someone's stupid kid to get out of their parents' car in a school parking lot. The car and the kid are free game. PERFECT."

I run into this all the time - the sarcasm, the failure to take responsibility for any part in the accident, the irrate person, situations where perceived proof is NOT proof (such as this accident where the BACK of the mirror hit the car as opposed to the FRONT - ?) I simply submit my report based on my education and experience and let the Attorney do the rest.

OK. Under those circumstances she woould have to take the bulk if not all the liability. Except that one thing still bothers me. Why was there even room for her to pass? In a drop off like you describe I don't understand why there was room to pass on the right. My daughter's elementary school had something similar to what you describe. It was a circular driveway. Cars pulled into the driveway, ALONG THE RIGHT EDGE, discharged there passengers and drove forward to exit the other end. I just can't imagine why there would even be room for a vehicle to pass on the right. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And I beleive that also bothers my colleagues.



I'm sorry but your attitude here leaves a lot to be desired. Everyone on this site VOLUNTEERS their time and expertise to help others. No one has given a "biased" opinion. They have given you the benefit of their knowledge and experience based on the information you posted. I can't find any bias or fault in their answers. And I think it is unfair and uncalled for of you to put down others simply because their assessment of the what you told them doesn't mesh with yours.

But here's the bottomline. My suspicion is that the insurance carriers are going to take the easy way out and just go 50-50. But, in doing so, neither of you will be out of pocket. If that happens and you don't like it, then you are going to have to take one or both the carriers to court. If you can prove that she had no business passing you on the right ad did so in violation of traffic patterns and safety warnings, then you should have a strong case.

Finally, I caution you against any further displays of attitude. If you don't like the advice given then ignore it. If you beleive the advice is based on incorrect assumptions then point out where those assumptions are incorrect without putting down the poster. But any further disparaging remarks will be removed.

You're right, some of my remarks were disparaging and tongue in cheek, and for that I apologize. I'm simply trying to wrap my head around the opinions presented, which to me appear somewhat biased (even though they may not be intentionally).

The insurance companies are conducting a thorough investigation of the accident, including that of the parking lot in which it took place, so I will leave this in their hands for the moment. Thank you all for your time and prompt replies.

If any of the opinions posted were biased, they were biased towards the facts. There is no reason for any of us to be biased for or against you (at least not initially). Our one and only bias is to give you the best advice we could given the facts you present.

And the issue of this woman having the room to pass you on the right is a bothersome issue.

But if the insurance companies are investigating and she illegally attempted to pass you on the right, then I can't see how they can attribute much liability to you.

Please keep us posted.

Will do. Thank you again, Scott.

Can I just add that I work for a number of Attorneys and insurance companies. I get paid to investigate and come up with a conclusion. Sometimes the Attorney's client is right; sometimes the Attorney's client is wrong. No Attorney or insurance company wants to get into a case and then find out that the client/insured was in the wrong.

I am totally unbiased - if I do slant a case, then I lose that Attorney's work.

So, no, I'm not "unintentionally" biased.

Correct, I come across a little hard here, ( cause I can) normally because first we are not given enoug info. In this case I still have no idea what sort of lane, or marked parking area the other car was driving though. This is where for trial, photos of the area during drop off time, and more should all be done.

I have no idea if the police were called, or at least the school resourse officer to do a school report

And we don't know what you are asking the other company for ( assume repair of your car)

The Op said a Police report was filed but they were campus Police. Depends on the type of school but most campus Police are not actually Police officers.The bottom line is, what we say will not matter because the two insurance companies will decide what happens. We do not have pictures of the other side of the story so its just a guessing game at this point.