|
eldar
6,996 posts
65 months
|
KingNothing said: I personally would have thought that is a totally different situation and one where you would be able to claim from the trucks insurance, regardless of negligeance or not. Why? Stone, properly maintained tyre, no negligence.
|
|
|
KingNothing
780 posts
22 months
|
eldar said: Why? Stone, properly maintained tyre, no negligence. A stonechip is a little hard to proove when comaped with a likely closed road due to a blown truck tyre and subsequent crashes.
|
|
|
eldar
6,996 posts
65 months
|
KingNothing said: A stonechip is a little hard to proove when comaped with a likely closed road due to a blown truck tyre and subsequent crashes. Hardly comparing like with like. Suppose the tyre debris just causes a £100 dent? No Armageddon, just a dent.
|
|
|
oldsoak
5,585 posts
71 months
|
1. No you are not liable
2. If she has a Fully Comp insurance, repair is (usually) free
3. If you didn't at the time tell her to do one
4. As you were
|
|
|
framerateuk
Original Poster
554 posts
53 months
|
Thanks chaps. I think my reply to her is going to take the line of "If you have a problem, speak to your insurer".
I did show her the state of the screen on my 7, some of the chips are more like craters!
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Motorrad
3,897 posts
56 months
|
I prefer not to communicate with people in these circumstances. I'd simply drive away without comment.
|
|
|
icetea
846 posts
11 months
|
jondude said: The plate won't cause worries - she will not be able to get your address/details from the DVLA due to Data Protection and they will advise her to go to the police to override this. The police will politely tell her she is mad as unless the stone has your DNA on it and witnesses saw you throw it at her screen, there is nothing she can do. This part doesn't sound true to me... you can easily get peoples details from the DVLA by paying a fee. Parking companies do it all the time.
|
|
|
otolith
19,403 posts
73 months
|
Breadvan72 said: Indeed, and think of...  I don't think the OP mentioned whether or not she had a nice pair of puppies.
|
|
|
StuartGGray
6,334 posts
97 months
|
jimmy the hat said: StuartGGray said: Tell her to take it up with the local council who should have swept clean the road before she travelled on it. If you ask me, it's indicative of the front-wheel-drive generation, egregiously. Apologies if you're not the Stuart Gray that that would mean anything to. Cheers, Jim Sorry, I'm the other one. 
|
|
|
hman
4,811 posts
63 months
|
KingNothing said: I personally would have thought that is a totally different situation and one where you would be able to claim from the trucks insurance, regardless of negligeance or not. Case law proves otherwise. No negligence from other driver = no recourse. You would be able to claim on your own fully comp insurance though.
|
|
|
framerateuk
Original Poster
554 posts
53 months
|
otolith said: I don't think the OP mentioned whether or not she had a nice pair of puppies. She certainly did not. Let's say that it's not only her windscreen that had had too many chips....
|
|
|
Lunablack
2,844 posts
31 months
|
Motorrad said: I prefer not to communicate with people in these circumstances. I'd simply drive away without comment. This is the correct approach. These people are idiots, engaging with them validates their existence.... Best to ignore  I wonder how it stands when say the council have laid chippings, and there's a 10mph limit.....then some idiot overtakes, or is travelling in the opposite direction at 40 or 50, and chips your screen, or damages the paintwork:???
|
|
|
superlightr
6,879 posts
132 months
|
Lunablack said: This is the correct approach. These people are idiots, engaging with them validates their existence.... Best to ignore I wonder how it stands when say the council have laid chippings, and there's a 10mph limit.....then some idiot overtakes, or is travelling in the opposite direction at 40 or 50, and chips your screen, or damages the paintwork:??? its and advisory 10mph limit.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
Where the risk of chippings is signposted, and someone hoons past and throws up chippings at someone else's yarmouth, there could perhaps be a negligence case. That is very different from the ordinary risks of road driving, as in the OP's case.
Criminal liability is not a pre requisite to civil liability, so the speed limit is not determinative.
|
|
|
Lunablack
2,844 posts
31 months
|
superlightr said: its and advisory 10mph limit. I know.... Hence my question........ If someone ignores the advice, and this results in damage to ones car..... Does this mean they're negligent, and you can claim off their insurance.... I somehow doubt it.... But was just wondering...
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
If you fail to exercise reasonable care, you may be liable for damage that you thereby cause. Arguably, zooming along a loosely surfaced road is failing to show reasonable care for other motorists.
|
|
|
jondude
1,512 posts
86 months
|
icetea said: jondude said: The plate won't cause worries - she will not be able to get your address/details from the DVLA due to Data Protection and they will advise her to go to the police to override this. The police will politely tell her she is mad as unless the stone has your DNA on it and witnesses saw you throw it at her screen, there is nothing she can do. This part doesn't sound true to me... you can easily get peoples details from the DVLA by paying a fee. Parking companies do it all the time. That is correct - you and I used to be able to get details easily. Not anymore - but 'authorised' places can. Can see the sense as if Joe Citizen today can get your name and address easily, it could lead to problems. But you may be right - this is theory. I believe the DVLA still say you and I can give full reasons for the need for the address and they will consider it....but again, the DPA should stop them as we all know we can pretend we need the details for good reasons and it just makes more sense for the DVLA to request you convince the police of that need first.
|
|
|
framerateuk
Original Poster
554 posts
53 months
|
Just spoke to the insurance company (I thought it was worth a call). And they said to tell the woman to chase it through her insurance if she thinks she has a claim, and that it'll be pretty much impossible to prove, and even then, the stone would not have been my responsibility. Case closed I will however update the thread if I get an amusing call from her
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,229 posts
32 months
|
You mean it wasn't your pet rock?
|
|
|
2 sMoKiN bArReLs
16,315 posts
104 months
|
Twice this year t  ts in vans have overtaken me on white hatchings, whilst I've been at the max speed limit of the road. Both times a stone flicked up & bust my windscreen. If I could have been bothered, I reckon in this scenario there would have been a liability. (driven where they shouldn't have been at a speed they shouldn't have been at)
|
|
