To drive a car you must regularly perform special maneuvers and backwards, turn, inserting or changing lanes. But who is now responsible for the occurrence of the damage and in such a maneuver results in a collision. The answer to this question is further explained in this article.
Article 54 of the RVV gives an example of the most common special maneuvers such as:
From an exit on the road driving
From the road driving into an exit
Change of lane
However, that listing mentioned in this article are just a few examples indicating that there are more special maneuvers are possible.
RVV Article 54 states that a person who carries out special maneuvers all other traffic must let go for. When to let the other is meant here to provide free passage and allow unhindered running the race. If a person with your particular maneuver so for example, must give in order to be able to pass, there is already talk of bother. Failure to meet the obligation of another grant free passage will mean in practice that the person who performed the particular maneuver is fully responsible for the occurrence of the damage. It is not so that the fulfillment of the special maneuver in itself provide for the creation of the liability, it may be an indication of liability. The fact that a person can be blamed for this not sufficiently careful not to obstruct other traffic ensures that the person who performed the particular maneuver is liable.
When two vehicles collide with each other because they both backward uitparkeerden, then both vehicles will be responsible for the occurrence of the damage. It is not that the one who was already more unparked or the first to uitparkeren began. In practice, it will be that such harm 50/50 be settled, either party can make 50% of their own loss stories together.
If two vehicles carrying several special maneuvers which causes damage will often question of a 50/50 distribution. It's not that one particular maneuver outweighs the other. However, a different distribution of damage is feasible, depending on the exact circumstances of the case.
Each headline exceptions of course brings with it, as well as the rule as outlined in Article 54 RVV.
For example, it may be that the opponent makes mistakes. It is for instance a situation where one person wants to go. He looks around and sees that the path is completely free. During this maneuver, however, is paid under a collision because the counterparty with a very high speed by a slight bend in the road is hit. In this case it was for the one who performed the particular maneuver impossible to perceive the counterparty at the start of his maneuver, and when he could do during the maneuver he could not take any more action. In this case, surely some debt and maybe even come all the blame lie with the person who was driving too fast.
Another situation that leads to the breaking of the main rules is exculpatory standstill period. It is the special maneuver already initiated but interrupted for a longer period of time. There is for instance a situation where one person wants and maneuvering his vehicle has been put into reverse. Because he sees the party he interrupts his maneuver and is a long time still to give the other vehicle the free passage. In this case, will generally be the entire liability for the person who hit the stationary vehicle. This should then of course turn out to be proven from the documents or by means of legal evidence.
As the foregoing makes clear the main scheme seems simple, and it will usually apply. The specific situation, however, can mean that there is a whole other debt distribution. It is therefore not recommended to treat such damage without any experience. If you do not have your own insurance or legal expenses insurer that the damage can handle for you then it might be interesting to look at let your damage by an expert claims representative or to submit to a claims office so that matters to you most maximum results can be achieved. In many cases, this may also be a further, free of charge.