Insurance procedure after car collision with a child.

[Pothole]

Jimmyarm said:

To counter that, on a narrow residential street with cars parked down both sides 20mph might be considered too fast (this isn't a criticism of your driving, I wasn't there).

Huh? How can this possibly reflect on an insurance claim unless there is a sub 20 mph limit in force?

[Retroman]

LoonR1 said:

No. They will pay out as proving a child was negligent is nigh on impossible. Feel free to explain how you'd go about it and then whether you fancy being the ones to cross examine a child in the witness box in court.

Why would i explain it? I was only asking a genuine question.

You had previously said in other threads insurance companies only pay out to third parties if the driver was liable due to negligence. I.e if their car caught fire, randomly and burnt cars around it then the insurance wouldn't pay the third parties as it was a random accident.

I would be interested to know how the driver was negligent in the circumstances described by the OP. Proving the child was negligent is a separate issue.

[Pothole]

Retroman said:

LoonR1 said:

No. They will pay out as proving a child was negligent is nigh on impossible. Feel free to explain how you'd go about it and then whether you fancy being the ones to cross examine a child in the witness box in court.

Why would i explain it? I was only asking a genuine question.

You had previously said in other threads insurance companies only pay out to third parties if the driver was liable due to negligence. I.e if their car caught fire, randomly and burnt cars around it then the insurance wouldn't pay the third parties as it was a random accident.

I would be interested to know how the driver was negligent in the circumstances described by the OP. Proving the child was negligent is a separate issue.

I'd happily cross examine a child. Being 10 doesn't mean you shouldn't have your actions questioned, does it?

[LoonR1]

Retroman said:

Why would i explain it? I was only asking a genuine question.

You had previously said in other threads insurance companies only pay out to third parties if the driver was liable due to negligence. I.e if their car caught fire, randomly and burnt cars around it then the insurance wouldn't pay the third parties as it was a random accident.

I would be interested to know how the driver was negligent in the circumstances described by the OP. Proving the child was negligent is a separate issue.

Let's start again. A child is highly unlikely to ever be found negligent. However, a person driving a 1.5 ton metal box past some parked cars and not leaving himself enough space to stop if something jumps out form the side is potentially negligent. This is compounded when the "thing" jumping out is a child who is still a minor in English Law amd therefore not necessarily responsible for his or her actions.

Without legal responsibility, you are going to struggle to find a court that will hold them liable for their actions. You might get some contributory negligence but not 100% liability.

Clear enough. Oh and you can ask away in court, but only if you're the one paying all the costs. An insurer is not going to take the reputational risk, especially if it's a losing case as well.

[Retroman]

LoonR1 said:

Let's start again. A child is highly unlikely to ever be found negligent. However, a person driving a 1.5 ton metal box past some parked cars and not leaving himself enough space to stop if something jumps out form the side is potentially negligent. This is compounded when the "thing" jumping out is a child who is still a minor in English Law amd therefore not necessarily responsible for his or her actions.

Without legal responsibility, you are going to struggle to find a court that will hold them liable for their actions. You might get some contributory negligence but not 100% liability.

Clear enough. Oh and you can ask away in court, but only if you're the one paying all the costs. An insurer is not going to take the reputational risk, especially if it's a losing case as well.

That's fair enough. It makes sense and i appreciate the reply.

It's similar to as i expected however. You mention the driver "may have been negligent" but it appears rather than find out, it is cheaper (and wiser from a business perspective) for the insurance company to pay out instead as there is still a (small?) risk to them their customer was negligent.

[Aretnap]

KFC said:

Eye witnesses ? Cctv? Gopro in the car ?

It's less about proving the facts of the collision as the standard of care expected. Negligence is failing to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. In the case of a 10 year old child, that means the standard of care expected of a reasonable 10 year old, which is obviously much lower than that expected of a reasonable adult.

Meanwhile a driver has an enhanced duty of care around children - a reasonably careful driver will be aware of the fact that children sometimes do, well, childish things, and will adjust his driving in anticipation of the possibility that one of them might step into the road. So while it's theoretically possible for a child to be entirely to blame for an accident, in practice it would be very rare for the driver not to be found at least partly to blame, especially where young children are involved.

Here's an actual case which went to court - compared and contrasted with the case of a drunk adult who stepped out in front of a car. http://www.simpmar.com/news-knowledge/smib/2010/sm...

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

Devil2575 said:

I get that, but in this situation where the child could potentially be judged to have been at fault then I'm supprised that an insurer would still pay out. If I was stationary in traffic and a car rear ended me and it was all captured on CCTV/Video i'd be supprised of the driver was able to sue anyone for whiplash. I under stand that in the case of an injury, especially to a minor, an insurer will pay out to cover the cost of medical treatement and ongoing care etc if it is required, but for short term pain and suffering?

Hypothetically could an adult intentionally set into the path of a slow moving vehicle, say 20mph, sustain injuries and then sue the drivers insurance for compensation? Or is the fact that in the OPs case it is a child that makes the difference? I realise that this is hypothetical, but i'm just interested in where the boundaries of what is possible and what isn't lie.

It's nigh on impossible to prove a child was negligent.

You keep referring to adults as if there is some difference in terms of liability. What do you think happens if a car knocks over a pedestrian, even one who just stepped onto the road (probably contributary at best but even then it's tricky), or run into a cyclist.

I genuinely don't know. I've never knocked anyone down (touches wood) or been knocked down myself. I'm asking out of genuine ignorance of the legal principles involved.

[LoonR1]

The legal system (if not the law) is weighted against the driver nowadays, so an adult has a good chance of a successful claim. However, as has been correctly stated above an adult is expected to act reasonably, whereas a child is expected to act differently.

That's not to say that you hitting an adult pedestrian or cyclist won't end up with you paying out for their injuries.

[WatchfulEye]

Pothole said:

uh? How can this possibly reflect on an insurance claim unless there is a sub 20 mph limit in force?

It's all about showing care.

The person claiming for injury or damage to their property must be able to demonstrate that the driver was negligent in some way. In the absence of negligence, there is no claim. That said, the degree of negligence that needs to be demonstrated is extremely low.

Some residential roads are narrow and have numerous hazards such as pedestrian crossings, traffic calming measures, parked cars, junctions, schools, etc. If a claimant can argue that the conditions of the road meant that a good driver would have proceeded at a speed lower than 20 mph because of the significant risks, then a driver who was doing 20 mph could be found liable, regardless of any statutory speed limit.

[Devil2575]

Aretnap said:

Here's an actual case which went to court - compared and contrasted with the case of a drunk adult who stepped out in front of a car. http://www.simpmar.com/news-knowledge/smib/2010/sm...

Fascinating stuff.

Thanks for that link.

[Mandat]

Thank you all for your advice so far.

I know it's only been a few days but the images of the accident are constantly going around in my head, and I’m having trouble focusing on other things.

I've driven since the accident and I feel a definite negative affect due to what happened. I'm now very apprehensive and constantly expecting someone to run out in front of me again without warning.

I’ve had my licence for 22 years and consider myself an experienced, careful and competent driver, yet it's very scary as to how quickly such a situation can develop and the helplessness that is felt when it is occurring.

I know that there is nothing that I can do to change what has happened, and all I can do now is to prepare for whatever the outcome might be in this unfortunate situation, hence the questions about the insurance position.

From what I’ve learned, it appears that a claim against me is almost certain, and also that the time limit for a claim is extended until the child is 21, therefore a claim could be made anytime between now and 2026.

I’ll keep the thread updated when new information is known.

[LoonR1]

Real world advice.

Forget the insurance stuff, let it happen and forget it.

Get yourself checked out and get on with your life. Nothing bad happened.

[Wyvern971]

I would suggest that aside from informing your insurer there's not much you can do about it.

I had a child run out from in front of a bus at a bus stop into the side of my motorcycle once.
(And I do mean head down, running).

Fortunately for him, he saw me and put his hands out, effectively pushing me over. (The child then ran off, probably out of shock).

At the time, someone on the bus called an ambulance (which also meant police attended).

The police took my statement (and probably those of witnesses).

Whilst I was in the back of the police car, the child reappeared with his mother.

The mother (who wasn't there at the time), was insisting I'd ridden into her child deliberately, which was nice.

The insurance company sent round someone to talk me through the incident, draw diagrams etc.

The police sent a letter of no further action.

In my case, I did make a claim as the motorcycle had slid into the kerb, making quite a few dings.

Since then I have always been more cautious around stopped vehicles, which to be fair is no bad thing as it's saved my bacon on a few occasions. (and also resulted in an occasional unintentional stoppie.)

[glasgowrob]

awaits a rash of scummy parents getting their children to run into the path of cars for cash

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mandat said:

Thank you all for your advice so far.


I've driven since the accident and I feel a definite negative affect due to what happened. I'm now very apprehensive and constantly expecting someone to run out in front of me again without warning.

If it went to court they would no doubt say that that's how you should have been driving in the first place. One throw away line like the above would sink you. Which is why Loon is right about how this claim will be settled.

[Mr GrimNasty]

LoonR1 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

It is possible to sue a 10 year old child in the UK, but as they probably have no money, and you only have 6 years to enforce a successful judgment, is it worth it? There is no lower age of responsibility (equivalent to the criminal age limit), but age will be considered. The adult responsible is sometimes a better target e.g. in a situation where an adult allowed a 3 year old to play on the street.

You can't sue a child. You're unlikely to succeed in suing their parents either.

Loon, I do wish you would refrain from giving ignorant advice on the internet. You can assert what you like, you are still wrong.

The position I have set out is the correct legal position the UK.

Whether it is worthwhile or sits well on your conscience is another matter.

[Lost soul]

So the kid gets compo for its own stupidity ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mr GrimNasty said:

LoonR1 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

It is possible to sue a 10 year old child in the UK, but as they probably have no money, and you only have 6 years to enforce a successful judgment, is it worth it? There is no lower age of responsibility (equivalent to the criminal age limit), but age will be considered. The adult responsible is sometimes a better target e.g. in a situation where an adult allowed a 3 year old to play on the street.

You can't sue a child. You're unlikely to succeed in suing their parents either.

Loon, I do wish you would refrain from giving ignorant advice on the internet. You can assert what you like, you are still wrong.

The position I have set out is the correct legal position the UK.

Whether it is worthwhile or sits well on your conscience is another matter.

You can sue a child in a civil action, but not for any contract dispute as a child cannot enter into a contract.

The age of the child is taken into consideration when deciding if a) they knew the act was wrong and b) they understood the possible consequences.

In a case in 2009, the parents of a 9 year old sued a 12 year old after he threw a dart that hit her in the eye. They lost the case as it was deemed that although the boy was old enough to know it was the wrong thing to do, he wasn't old enough to realise the possible serious consequences.

Suing a child for damage in a case like the OPs is possible to do but impossible to win and would be a total waste of time and money.

[LoonR1]

Lost soul said:

So the kid gets compo for its own stupidity ?

It might have the payout reduced a bit due to contributory negligence, but in the main the driver owes a duty of care to be more vigilant around situations like the OP describes. Kids do stupid things, adults know this. Adults have to moderate their behaviour to compensate for this.

[Lost soul]

LoonR1 said:

Lost soul said:

So the kid gets compo for its own stupidity ?

It might have the payout reduced a bit due to contributory negligence, but in the main the driver owes a duty of care to be more vigilant around situations like the OP describes. Kids do stupid things, adults know this. Adults have to moderate their behaviour to compensate for this.

Ridiculous