Discussions

Does anyone have any experience with MPI ruling 100% against you without hearing your version of the events?  
 
The incident was a small accident in a parking lot, and after hearing only one side of the story, MPI has deemed us 100% at fault. They don't even want to hear our side, or that of our witnesses.  
 
We'll still go in and try to talk to a supervisor, but I'm just sick at the thought that they would make a judgement without hearing all the facts (the other party could have lied). Does this seem right to you?

I have had this happen twice to me, MPI just wants their money.

Different scenario, but you can appeal it.

What happened?? What was the situation? There are circumstances where you will be 100% at fault so needing you side of the story may not be necessary however you do have the option to appeal so call and book a statement appointment

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine was parked in an angled parking spot by grocery store in a small town. AS she was backing out of the spot, another car crossed the double yellow line behind her and the result was my friend having the back of her car hit.  
 
Once autopac was involved, they were going to assess my friend 100% responsible. She appealed mentioning how this person had crossed a double yellow line in the process of pulling into the parking spot. SHe supplied pictures and after this, they assessed each driver 50% responsible.  
 
That only upset my friend even more. She took the time to do all of the paper work needed to explain that she appropriately did the check pulling out, that she had looked both ways but as she was moving, she concentrated on the traffic that would be coming on her side only to see that they other car had rushed in over the double line. We had to state Traffic Law that this accident was caused by someone else not following rules; that it would have been avoided had this person followed the rules; had to get a statement from 2 witnesses who were present when this happened.  
 
Once all of this was done, MPI stated that as it was my friends first accident, they would waive any responsibility for her actions. She asked for a court date. THat was the only way that MPI officially stated that the accident was the fault of the other driver not following Traffic laws.  
 
What we believe is MPI was only doing this to see how far we were willing to do the work needed to push her innocence. My advice if you believe you were not at fault, is to fight it but prepared to do the work. With MPI, we felt it was who ever got the report done first was the one not at fault. If you have to, contact the city police and file a report. That seemed to help my friend as well.

My son was backing out of a space at school. Due to there being a large truck with a cap next to him, he couldn't see if anyone was coming. He slowly inched out, and hit/was hit by a car driving behind him. The passenger of that car admitted that they saw him pulling out, but the driver didn't bother to stop or even honk. Other witnesses claimed he was driving fairly fast for a parking lot.  
 
We were more than prepared to take half the blame, but to be blamed 100% without telling our side is maddening. My son and his dad had/have an appointment to make a statement tomorrow morning, but mpi made up their mind today.

He was backing up, autopac automatically assess 100% at fault

fault is based off of the highway traffic act and it states that the person reversing is  
Responsible to make sure it's safe before  
Doing so...so therefor if your son was backing up then that is correct, he should be at fault. You can still choose to make a statement to appeal it however, it seems like a "black and white" situation

So the fact that the other driver could have stopped to avoid the accident altogether doesn't factor in?  
 
There's some common courtesy to be used in a parking lot. If someone is backing out of a space and obviously can't see you coming, you either stop or alert them to the fact that you are there. I dont know how many times I could have been hit if I didn't have this common sense!

Are absolutely correct in that it is a  
Common courtesy, however from what I understand is that if a  
Vehicle is traveling In a "main aisle" in a parking lot, they have the right of way and it is the reversing vehicles responsibility to ensure it is safe to reverse before doing so.

Commom courtesy is like common sense.... Not that common anymore... And more and more irrelevant when dealing with any government agencies