That is a 4 cylinder, which I have never seen paired with a stick, so
I'll say it has an automatic. The only (Camry) sticks I've seen from
1992 to 1996 were in the SE V6 coupe. BTW, that VIN doesn't quite
look legitimate but I'm no VIN expert. At minimum I'm thinking the
"F" is wrong.
Toyota MDT in MO
1992 TOYOTA CAMRY LE
SEDAN 4 DR
2.2L L4 FI 16V / FRONT WHEEL DRIVE
short version of why I want to know - this car bumped my wife's car in a
parking lot 2 years ago. They left it touching her car. The other
driver was found at fault. Now, they're trying to get it overturned.
By what I don't know, but my theory was it was a stick and they left it
in neutral when parking it and it rolled.
no it's not.
Side note: In manitoba, we have public insurance, so it's only one
My wife's car was parked and hit by another car. The other driver
denies doing it despite the fact the cars were touching when my wife
came back to her car. The accident was deemed the fault of the other
driver, who maintains her innocence. She's now taking us to small
claims court in the hope a judge will overturn the liability for the
accident. (that's the final appeals process here for car accidents.)
How is that possible? One scenario I can see her trying is the fact
that it's a she said - she said thing - my wife can't prove anything,
and the other driver could say that my wife hit HER car and is covering
it up. (although, if she was, why would she leave a note, file a
security report, file an insurance claim, and a police report too?)
I'm not worried about losing in court, just looking to cover all my
bases. I've wondered if the other car was a stick and was left in
neutral and rolled forward into my wife's car, because what kind of
idiot leaves their car TOUCHING another car?
So, because no one actually can prove what happened, and there's no
witnesses, I'm trying to make sure that any loopholes work out in our
favor. (For example, on the accident report, the other driver mentions
that she was involved in another accident the SAME DAY. that'll look
real good in front of the judge.)
Court sucks. And because it's small claims court, a lawyer @ $100/hour
is out, because I can't even recover my costs if they're greater than $100.
All this for virtually no damage, and if the owner of the Toyota had
left a message saying "oops, sorry, I bumped your car" we would have
said "sh*t happens, it's a 16 year old car." But instead, they left
this Camry humping the Beretta.
If you wife's car were legally parked, and she was not in it, it would seem
a platform of your case. Did your car roll, as you might suspect that the
did? (If your wife's car were still in the legal parking limits, then this
might offset the
possibility that your car rolled.)
Was the other car outside its parking limit? Whether the other woman drove
your car, or the car made contact by rolling, if it nudged into your space,
woman should be liable for failure to control her vehicle.
Dont know anything about law there, but if you can support your position I
think you would be in good shape before a judge.
Our car is an automatic, so it's not rolling anywhere. Actually, the
parking pawl is buggered, so it DOES roll about a foot, which is why you
have to set the park brake on it. Been like that for about 5 years.
Still, our car was parked at 7:30 am, the other driver got there around
3:30pm, so our car hadn't moved in about 8 hours...
We're actually planning on contacting the other party to see if we can
work something out instead of going to court. The total damage to a 16
year old Beretta was under $500 and had they left a note we probably
would have said "whatever" and not worried about it. As we haven't had
our car fixed yet, we can still withdraw the claim if they pay us out.
Manitoba Public insurance also allows them to purchase the accident and
keep a claims-free status. We're pretty sure that's why they're suing
as the other driver had another accident the same day with the same car,
totalling it, and we're guessing at fault for - all the damage to the
other driver's car was right side near the rear door and tire... like
maybe they ran a light and got T-boned or turned left in front of someone.
Anyway, still want to know if it's a stick. Toyota of Canada hasn't
emailed me back, so I'll just go visit a dealer and ask.
I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing that
you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this is a
Canada spec car the "F" digit may be legitimate, but I don't know what
it stands for. From my info and from some guessing it looks like a
Canada spec DX or LX 4 cylinder *can* be equipped with the 5 speed
manual transaxle, but I would guess thay are made in limited number.
It's still highly likely that this Camry has an automatic. Nothing
beats asking the owner or looking at it.
Toyota MDT in MO
This is your lucky day: I just did your work for you by phoning a local
Toyota dealer here in Canada.
The VIN number in question is in Toyota's records as having an automatic
This took me all of two minutes.
I suspect your wife is going to be found at fault. Not because you have
presented evidence for that, but because you haven't described what
happened in a way any one reading your post could tell what happened. If
you describe what happened in court in the same way you will lose.
well, I won't be bringing it up if they don't.
It's my wife's word vs the other driver's.
A vehicle hit a parked unmanned vehicle, so it can't be 50-50.
My wife left a note, contacted security (who took pictures and amended
the note for the other driver to contact security), had the driver
paged, contacted the insurance company, had to file a hit and run
report, has a clean driving record, and according to the security
guard's notes, "was very upset."
the other driver: Told the police she thought the note was a joke,
didn't call because she didn't want to talk to strangers (she's 28!),
was involved in another $4000 car accident the same day, was driving her
The insurance company has already found in our favor once. I'm 99%
convinced of a win. We have contacted the other party to discuss
settling this outside of court - it was $450 damage to our car, and they
can either buy us out (haven't had it fixed yet) or pay off the
insurance company and have a clean record. That's cheaper than what
their premiums will go up by. We still haven't ruled out a $100/hour
shark lawyer, because I don't want to lose. Also, the other driver said
there was no damage to her car, so even if we lose, all we have to do is
pull the claim and we don't even lose because then the insurance company
pays nothing and nothing happens to anyone's license/insurance.
My wife's still pissed about it tho - someone smacked her car and LEFT
Well that is why you are going to lose. This whole issue with what type of
transmission - it is is just an attempt to muddy the waters and the judge
isn't going to buy it.
First of all the other car didn't roll into your wife's car. If it had
rolled then when your wife's care was moved it would continue to roll and
the security guard would attest to that and there would be no question as
to what happened. It wouldn't be your "wife's word vs the other driver's".
Looking at it from the point of view of the other driver. She arrives at
her car and finds a note saying her car struck another car. There is no
damage to her car, no sign of an accident and her car is where she left it
- she thinks its a joke. Later she finds she has been assigned blame for
the accident mostly because she failed to respond. So her appeal seems
As to what really happened. Your wife could be lying. The other driver
could be lying. Or another car may have bumped one of the 2 vehicles
pushing it into the other. There may even be more possibilities that the
actual evidence might suggest.
Good point on the fact the other car would continue to move after my
wife moved her car. I wasn't going to bring up the type of trans in the
other car unless I thought it would help. Actually, I probably won't
bring up anything because I only get to go to court because I'm listed
as a co-owner of the car. I wasn't in the car.
If the other driver really thought it was a joke, she could have checked
in with the security people, as the note was amended by them. Also,
from her insurance statement "I remember it being hard to park in the
parkade that day" - wtf does that mean?
If my wife is lying, why would she have bothered to get security, the
police, and the insurance company involved for a damage claim that's
barely visible and barely over her deductible? Plus, a friend of mine
works for a body shop and is the one that painted the car a couple of
years before this, so he could probably have fixed it for 1/2 the
official estimate. Oh, and the insurance company has already found in
our favor once. (public insurance, so same insurance company.)
But yes, the fact that it's all circumstantial evidence is why I'd still
rather NOT go to court, because we could still lose. Guilty people get
off all the time.
The reason your wife did what she did is $400 (i.e. if she didn't do all
those things she wouldn't get $400). The judge knows she has to follow
certain procedure whether she is lying or telling the truth. You are just
going to insult the judge's intelligence if you try to make the above
argument. You might as well tell the judge that the fact that your wife
showed up in court proves she is not lying. The court is interested in
facts. You want to talk about everything but the facts. The court is going
to decide against you.
And the fact that you can get the car repaired for half of what the
insurance paid doesn't really speak well for the honesty of you or your
wife. But somehow you think that makes her story more believable.
The facts are this:
My wife claims the other car hit hers.
My wife's car was parked there first (receipts and snow can prove that.)
My wife contacted security when she returned to her car.
Security took pictures and attempted to contact the other driver.
My wife left a note.
My wife contacted the insurance company.
My wife was told to file a hit and run report with the police.
The police were told by the other driver she thought the note was a joke.
The other driver had a second car accident that same day.
The insurance company has found in our favor. (public insurance, so
only one insurance company involved.)
My wife's driving record is clean.
If we lose in court, we can pull the claim, and are out nothing.
We really have nothing to gain by winning, and nothing to gain by
losing, my wife only went after this because she was furious that
someone would hit her car and leave it there touching the bumper.
I can get the car fixed for half the price because my friend works for a
body shop. He painted the car back in 2000. I can R&R the parts, he
can paint them. Hell, I painted my race car, I can paint a bumper. MPI
would even allow that, I'd just have to get it inspected after. They'd
even pay me to do the work.
The only reason the car hasn't been fixed yet is the kid factor. We had
a 10 month old at the time, and my wife got pregnant before this was
resolved, so we've been a bit busy to deal with it. The car has also
been "retired" as we bought a wagon, so we've been unsure what to do
with it - it needs a full safety if we sell it, and the car's in good
shape, but the windshield is cracked, the AC is busted, and it's 18
years old with 240,000km on it. And it's a Beretta... whoopee. So, it
sits. (ever tried to put two car seats in a Beretta?)
Anyway, I don't care if you think my wife is lying or not. She tells me
she's not, so I believe her. Manitoba Public Insurance believed her.
Now she just has to convince the judge of that.
FWIW, what I'd like to do to the Beretta... is cut out the floor and
graft a Camaro floor and powertrain in there. Look stock, carry a 350
and RWD. :)
Your wife's claim is an opinion. How does she know that somebody in big
SUV didn't come along and push her Barrets into the Camry? If that is what
happened why would the Camry owner be at fault?
I never said your wife was lying - I said you are going to lose in court.
One of the reasons you are going to lose is you don't know the difference
between a fact and an opinion. What you are presenting as the facts are
either opinions or irrelevant facts. That's just going to annoy the judge.
Was your wife LEGALLY parked, fully within the lines?
There was an incident some years ago where a cow-orker was parking her
car way over a line at the back of a parking space so that it would be
in the shade of a tree. That rendered the parking place directly behind
her car basically unusable because the rear of her car extended a few
feet into that parking spot. Someone pulled into the spot, gently
touched her rear bumper with his rubber bumper gards, and then applied
pressure to her car (not enough to cause damage, just enough to make the
car move slightly), set his brake, and went in to work. When she came
out to leave and pulled her car out of gear, it must have jumped forward
5 feet because the other car was pushing quite firmly against her
parking pawl. It must've been pretty hard to get out of gear, too, but I
digress ;-) . She left a nasty note and contacted security. Next day,
same thing, another note and another call to the parking police. And
again the next day... at which time SHE was cited for being illegally
parked. From that point on, all the spaces in the parking lot were
usable every day....
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.