The plaintiff challenged her insurer’s determination that she was 50 percent at fault for a motor vehicle collision that occurred while both drivers were reversing.
The insurer relied on rule 19(a) of the Fault Determination Rules, which assigns full fault to a reversing driver who strikes another vehicle.
The court held that rule 19(a) did not apply because both vehicles were reversing and the circumstances were not fully captured by any rule in the Fault Determination Rules.
Applying the ordinary rules of negligence under the Highway Traffic Act and common law, the court found that both drivers failed to maintain a proper lookout while reversing.
Fault was therefore properly apportioned equally between them and the insurer was responsible for only 50 percent of the repair costs.
