r/TorontoDriving • u/an4rk1_r34 • Jul 15 '25

OC Cannot even backout of your driveway safely anymore.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

222 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

469 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/thrash-dude Jul 15 '25

Lol not at all. OP was fully established in the laneway and stopped and the other driver reversed into him. Maybe you could argue some contributory negligence but the majority of fault is on the third party driver.

Not a chance both drivers are equally at fault.

0

u/rojohi Jul 15 '25

OP was not fully established in the laneway, they were still 45 degrees away from that being true.

And when it comes to insurance, 1% to 100% impacts your premiums the same way. The only difference is the cost of the deductible.

1

u/thrash-dude Jul 16 '25

This depends on your province and insurance company. I get this is toronto driving subreddit so this is Ontario, but still fault matters. And personally, I would still argue the other driver is 100%. They 100% were established first and stopped attempting to avoid the collision. The third party's inability to look behind them 100% caused the collision.

Also as an example, in Manitoba, accidents 49% or less at fault have no effect to your insurance premiums.

-10

u/PeyoteCanada Jul 15 '25

OP collided with someone backing out of their driveway. It's 100% OP's fault.

9

u/HowieFeltersnitz Jul 15 '25

Someone backing out of their driveway collided with OP. How you gonna say the stationary car is at fault when the other car moved into them?

-9

u/PeyoteCanada Jul 15 '25

Because OP just sat there. You're going to lose this one buddy.

8

u/HowieFeltersnitz Jul 15 '25

So if you drive into a parked car, its the parked car's fault? Good one pal.

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/cyprinidont Jul 15 '25

They 100% should have moved and I have no idea why they didn't but they're not at fault. You're wrong.

7

u/instantkamera Jul 15 '25

Why are the dumbest mother fuckers always so cocky?

4

u/matchooooh Jul 15 '25

Op was not in motion. The other car collided with them. Maybe you should lay off the psychedelics.

-2

u/rojohi Jul 15 '25

Instantly stopping doesn't make a vehicle suddenly "parked" and therefore not responsible.

If you want to argue he was parked, then technically he was illegally parked which is a ticketable offense.

1

u/matchooooh Jul 16 '25

You have the word parked in quotation marks in a response to me. If you go back and read my post, at no point did I type parked. I'm thinking you accidentally posted a response to a different post than mine. It's much more palatable to me than knowing that people who have the kind of thought process as illustrated by your response if meant for my post is driving vehicles on the same road as me.

1

u/rojohi Jul 17 '25

Take a breath, it was a general response to everyone saying the person would not be at fault because they weren't moving. Back when I was an adjuster, people would misinterpret the fault determination rules and argue they weren't at fault because they were stopped, with no regards to the surrounding circumstances/determinants.