Incident Overview
Location: Underground parking lot of a large shopping center
Structure: One-way aisle with parking spaces on both sides; aisle width sufficient for one vehicle only
Vehicle A (Defendant): Reversing out of a parking space, about to enter the main aisle
Vehicle B (Plaintiff): Driving forward along the aisle, then suddenly attempted a sharp left turn
Point of Impact: Center of aisle — left rear bumper of Vehicle A and right front fender of Vehicle B
Sequence of Events
Vehicle A was slowly reversing using rear-view camera and side mirrors
Vehicle B was driving straight but abruptly turned left to access an open space on the opposite side
Vehicle B failed to use the turn signal and did not properly assess surrounding clearance
The two vehicles collided in a narrow section with limited reaction time for either party
<This is a simulated image of the accident scene>
CCTV & Witness Statements
Vehicle A: Reversing at constant low speed, nearly stopped at the time of collision
Vehicle B: Driving straight, then made a sudden turn without signal
CCTV footage shows Vehicle A proceeding cautiously, almost at a standstill
Nearby witnesses stated:
"Vehicle B turned too suddenly; it caused confusion even for oncoming drivers."
Court’s Ruling Summary
"Although reversing vehicles are generally held to a higher duty of care, the plaintiff’s abrupt and unpredictable steering maneuver significantly deviated from expected driving behavior in a one-way aisle."
Vehicle A (reversing)
Higher-than-average duty of care required
However, no evidence of neglecting rear visibility; video confirms adequate precautions
Vehicle B (forward-moving)
Did not use turn signal before changing direction
Executed a sudden and unexpected turn, leaving little time for other vehicles to respond
Failed to maintain lane discipline in a narrow, one-way aisle
Conclusion
While Vehicle A, being in reverse, carried a higher duty to avoid collisions, the court concluded that it had acted with reasonable caution. Therefore, only partial liability was assigned to Vehicle A. The majority of the responsibility was placed on Vehicle B, whose abrupt steering without signaling in a confined area was considered unpredictable and unsafe.
The court ultimately held Vehicle B 70% at fault for the incident, while Vehicle A bore 30% responsibility due to the general risk associated with reversing.
As a result, the driver of Vehicle B was ordered to compensate 70% of the repair costs for Vehicle A. Conversely, Vehicle A’s insurer could recover only 30% of its own repair expenses from Vehicle B’s party.
Civil Compensation Summary:
Vehicle A’s insurer was entitled to recover only 30% of its repair costs from Vehicle B
Vehicle B’s driver was ordered to compensate 70% of Vehicle A’s repair expenses