Legal Question in Personal Injury in Arizona
Parking lot accident. I see no lights on "Bob's" parked vehicle so I stop behind Bob to back into a nearby space; straight-in parking, backing in allowed. While I'm backing up, Bob begins to back out of his space striking my car with his wheelchair lift. Bob apologizes for not seeing me. No witnesses. Police would not make a report. We exchange info and call our agencies. I get a settlement offer from Bob's insurance accepting 90% liability and wanting to assess me 10% due to, according to them, my failing to heed Bob's back up lights when I pulled up behind him. Bob has obviously lied to his insurance company. He claimed to them that he was in reverse with his foot on the brake when I pulled behind him. Not true. Bob claims to have waited for me to clear his mirrors before backing out and did not see that I was so close when he did back up.
My insurance company has already assessed Bob 100% liability and closed the case in my favor. They have offered to reopen, repair my car and subrogate, but I cannot afford the $1,000.00 deductable.
I say Bob is 100% liable because he had the duty to know that his proximity was clear and safe before backing up at all. ARS 28-891A agrees.
Can I sue Bob in Small Claims for the repairs despite the pending insurance offer?
Would I have access to Bob�s written and/or recorded declarations?
Does justice court regard relevant traffic statutes?
Do the justice courts arbitrarily apply comparative negligence standards like insurance companies do?
Should I just save up the $1,000.00 and file through my own insurance and let them subrogate because their own lawyers will be better suited to make this argument for me?
1 Answer from Attorneys
You seem to have researched this and already have your own opinion about the answer. You are looking for confirmation that you are right - not a legal opinion.
Virtually no accident is 100% either party's fault. If you take this to court the judge or jury will assess fault based upon thier interpretation of the facts presented. I have heard of a case deemed 10% the fault of a person stopped at a red traffic light who was rear-ended but "failed to check in his rear view mirror for a coming vehicle." Bottom line, if you sue "Bob's" insurance company will argue the accident is actually your fault and you are very unlikely to get a result as favorable as 90% "Bob's" fault - 50/50 is possible. What you will be guaranteed to get is a lot of expense, which will not make your case more valuable or result in extra money or reimbursment to you. If you accept the insurance money, you will have to release "Bob" from any liability so you cannot go after him afterwards. You either accept the insurance money, or take your chance in court. The insurance only has to pay up to the policy limit, and a low impact accident in a parking lot will not exceed the value of the insurance policy, so "Bob" won't have to pay anything. And by the way under ARS �28-891A you also had the duty to know that your proximity was clear and safe before backing up, which would include not backing up if "Bob" was already in his vehicle. You would definitely be held partially at fault, and I believe 90% is generous if "Bob" was already in his vehicle.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
