Insurance procedure after car collision with a child.
Discussion
I’m looking for some advice from the insurance experts.
I was unfortunate enough to be involved with a collision with a 10 year old child, which ran into the road from between parked cars 1 car length in front of me. I was travelling at approx. 20mph but even then I was unable to stop in time due to the short distance.
The child was injured and taken to hospital but I’m told that the injuries are not lifer threatening / changing.
The police attended and took statements from independent witnesses, which state the circumstances were as I described above.
The police told me at the scene that they did not consider that I had committed any offences, and that they would not be taking any action against me.
The question that I have is what happens with insurance in such circumstances? Obviously, I have informed my insurance company of the incident, and I’ve told them that I am not making a claim as there is no damage to my car.
However, I fully expect the child’s parents to make a claim against my insurance even though I was not negligent.
How do insurers usually deal with such situations? Do they automatically pay out for injuries or will they defend a claim due to the injuries being caused by the child’s own negligence? Can a 10 year old be considered negligent in such a situation, and will the parent’s be held negligent by proxy, for not appropriately supervising the child.
Or am I automatically held liable because I was the driver at the time, even though I was an unwitting participant caught up in an unfortunate situation?
Any advice and insight in to the insuracne procedures is much appreciated.
I was unfortunate enough to be involved with a collision with a 10 year old child, which ran into the road from between parked cars 1 car length in front of me. I was travelling at approx. 20mph but even then I was unable to stop in time due to the short distance.
The child was injured and taken to hospital but I’m told that the injuries are not lifer threatening / changing.
The police attended and took statements from independent witnesses, which state the circumstances were as I described above.
The police told me at the scene that they did not consider that I had committed any offences, and that they would not be taking any action against me.
The question that I have is what happens with insurance in such circumstances? Obviously, I have informed my insurance company of the incident, and I’ve told them that I am not making a claim as there is no damage to my car.
However, I fully expect the child’s parents to make a claim against my insurance even though I was not negligent.
How do insurers usually deal with such situations? Do they automatically pay out for injuries or will they defend a claim due to the injuries being caused by the child’s own negligence? Can a 10 year old be considered negligent in such a situation, and will the parent’s be held negligent by proxy, for not appropriately supervising the child.
Or am I automatically held liable because I was the driver at the time, even though I was an unwitting participant caught up in an unfortunate situation?
Any advice and insight in to the insuracne procedures is much appreciated.
The important thing out of all of this is that the child, and to some extent you are OK.
Accidents happen, if there is a claim and your insurers feel it is worth defending they will.
There can be an aspect of contributory negligence from parents but the claims i have seen in the past the child has been younger, a ten year old should know better.
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).
Another point is that despite the police taking no action it does not mean that no blame rests with you.
In summary, let the insurers deal with it and be thankful the child is OK.
Accidents happen, if there is a claim and your insurers feel it is worth defending they will.
There can be an aspect of contributory negligence from parents but the claims i have seen in the past the child has been younger, a ten year old should know better.
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).
Another point is that despite the police taking no action it does not mean that no blame rests with you.
In summary, let the insurers deal with it and be thankful the child is OK.
Awful situation but glad no life changing injuries, happened to me but you and the child will get through it.
Firstly have you driven since the incident? If not pick a quiet moment and get back behind the wheel, you can't doing anything more for the child but you can think of yourself and get back behind the wheel even if you don't feel like it.
Now as it was a child involved, you as the driver are the responsible adult and however unfair you are deemed at fault. In my case there was a driving without due care prosecution to deal with so witnesses are important, a chat with a solicitor is probably advisable so you know where you stand and can mitigate more effectively.
This probably sounds awful under the circumstances but in hindsight I wish someone had told this to me at the time.
Firstly have you driven since the incident? If not pick a quiet moment and get back behind the wheel, you can't doing anything more for the child but you can think of yourself and get back behind the wheel even if you don't feel like it.
Now as it was a child involved, you as the driver are the responsible adult and however unfair you are deemed at fault. In my case there was a driving without due care prosecution to deal with so witnesses are important, a chat with a solicitor is probably advisable so you know where you stand and can mitigate more effectively.
This probably sounds awful under the circumstances but in hindsight I wish someone had told this to me at the time.
A personal injury claim to a child can potentially be extremely large, even for what at the time may have been considerd a "minor" injury. Importantly, the normal time limits to bring a claim do not apply to children (they have up until the age of 21 to bring a claim).
For this reason, you should expect the insurer to defend any claim vigorously. Additionally, because there may be a very long time for a claim to be brought, you should be prepared for your insurer to ask for a detailed statement. Potentially they may ask for any additional evidence you may have, such as copies of your MOT certificate, your car's maintenance history including invoices/receipts, etc. to ensure that their defence is not compromised because these documents have been lost or discarded at the time a claim is brought.
It may save you time and stress if you start preparing a statement immediately so that you don't forget what happened, and can then send it to your insurer promptly if and when they ask for it (there's nothing worse than having your insurer threatening to cancel your policy because you are late sending documents in, and you've temporarily mislaid your copies, etc.). As your insurer may ask for paperwork, it may help if you check to see what is available and/or prepare copies in anticipation.
For this reason, you should expect the insurer to defend any claim vigorously. Additionally, because there may be a very long time for a claim to be brought, you should be prepared for your insurer to ask for a detailed statement. Potentially they may ask for any additional evidence you may have, such as copies of your MOT certificate, your car's maintenance history including invoices/receipts, etc. to ensure that their defence is not compromised because these documents have been lost or discarded at the time a claim is brought.
It may save you time and stress if you start preparing a statement immediately so that you don't forget what happened, and can then send it to your insurer promptly if and when they ask for it (there's nothing worse than having your insurer threatening to cancel your policy because you are late sending documents in, and you've temporarily mislaid your copies, etc.). As your insurer may ask for paperwork, it may help if you check to see what is available and/or prepare copies in anticipation.
Putting aside all the justified concerns over the welfare of the child, it will work like this. Your insurer will pay out. There is no way to hold a child liable for this, nor would they want to. The insurer might try for some contributory negligence, but it will be limited.
Any decision on payout will depend on the extent of the injuries and the rehabilitation period along with quite a few other things. It will have to be ratified by a Court, which unfortunately increases costs, but that doesn't matter to you, as its the amount of accidents, not the cost of them that determines your premium.
The police not taking action is a criminal matter, the insurance aspect is a civil matter. Burden of proof differs greatly.
My advice is to accept it and move on, a bit of extra cost for a few years is a lot better than a lifetime of knowing that you killed / seriously injured someone, as well as a few years of arguing over money too.
P
Any decision on payout will depend on the extent of the injuries and the rehabilitation period along with quite a few other things. It will have to be ratified by a Court, which unfortunately increases costs, but that doesn't matter to you, as its the amount of accidents, not the cost of them that determines your premium.
The police not taking action is a criminal matter, the insurance aspect is a civil matter. Burden of proof differs greatly.
My advice is to accept it and move on, a bit of extra cost for a few years is a lot better than a lifetime of knowing that you killed / seriously injured someone, as well as a few years of arguing over money too.
KingNothing said:
If they claim, make sure to counter claim against the child/parents for the damage to your car 
IdiotP
mcflurry said:
AFAIK there was a German case where the driver sued an injured pedestrian, as they had walked out in front of the car.
We're not in GermanyLoonR1 said:
Any decision on payout will depend on the extent of the injuries and the rehabilitation period along with quite a few other things.
I'm just wondering if the child would be compensated for simply being injured even if no financial losses/costs have been incurred as a result of it.
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.
Devil2575 said:
Assuming that the injuries aren't serious and don't require any rehabilitiation as such and there will be no loss of earnings etc would there still be a payout?
I'm just wondering if the child would be compensated for simply being injured even if no financial losses/costs have been incurred as a result of it.
Yes. Any injury will involve some pain and suffering and therefore a monetary amount is paid for this. A court is the only body able to be able to quantify and ratify this amount for a minor, but the claimants representatives will be able to submit their take on the injury and amount payable. I'm just wondering if the child would be compensated for simply being injured even if no financial losses/costs have been incurred as a result of it.
Even a bruise can deserve some money, albeit negligible. Minor injury soft tissue damazes eg whiplash are nigh on I possible to disprove so 99.99% of claims are paid.
Your question is also answered with adults who successfully claim whiplash after a minor prang. They don't need to have time off work, or even damage to their car to succeed.
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. LoonR1 said:
Putting aside all the justified concerns over the welfare of the child, it will work like this. Your insurer will pay out. There is no way to hold a child liable for this, nor would they want to. The insurer might try for some contributory negligence, but it will be limited.
Are the insurance paying out solely because it'll just be a few thousand £ and its the cheapest option to make it go away?Out of interest, what happens if a child jumps out in front of a car like that and loses both their arms/legs, and millions of £ of lifetime care for something that was clearly their own fault. Would they still pay out?
LoonR1 said:
Devil2575 said:
Assuming that the injuries aren't serious and don't require any rehabilitiation as such and there will be no loss of earnings etc would there still be a payout?
I'm just wondering if the child would be compensated for simply being injured even if no financial losses/costs have been incurred as a result of it.
Yes. Any injury will involve some pain and suffering and therefore a monetary amount is paid for this. A court is the only body able to be able to quantify and ratify this amount for a minor, but the claimants representatives will be able to submit their take on the injury and amount payable. I'm just wondering if the child would be compensated for simply being injured even if no financial losses/costs have been incurred as a result of it.
Even a bruise can deserve some money, albeit negligible. Minor injury soft tissue damazes eg whiplash are nigh on I possible to disprove so 99.99% of claims are paid.
Your question is also answered with adults who successfully claim whiplash after a minor prang. They don't need to have time off work, or even damage to their car to succeed.
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.
Loon, what is the reasoning behind insurance companies paying out for things like this?
Is it because if it goes to court, even if they win and prove their driver wasn't negligent the costs of defending are higher than paying out or is it because the driver is actually determined to be negligent?
Is it because if it goes to court, even if they win and prove their driver wasn't negligent the costs of defending are higher than paying out or is it because the driver is actually determined to be negligent?
KFC said:
LoonR1 said:
Putting aside all the justified concerns over the welfare of the child, it will work like this. Your insurer will pay out. There is no way to hold a child liable for this, nor would they want to. The insurer might try for some contributory negligence, but it will be limited.
Are the insurance paying out solely because it'll just be a few thousand £ and its the cheapest option to make it go away?Out of interest, what happens if a child jumps out in front of a car like that and loses both their arms/legs, and millions of £ of lifetime care for something that was clearly their own fault. Would they still pay out?
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. 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.
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.
KFC 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.
Eye witnesses ? Cctv? Gopro in the car ?This happened to me when I was 10.
My fault, I ran out and got knocked over. I was taken to hospital with a gash on the back of my head to which a small scar is still present nearly 19 years later.
My parents never prosecuted and they quite rightly called me an idiot for not looking. I don't recall any police involvment but would hate to the think the driver was peanalised in anyway, either by the police or his insurers.
They good things to come of this was when the Asda carrier bag full of sweets I got off the neighbouring kids and a better awareness around roads.
Hope nothing comes off it OP and hope you are ok to, as I imagine you are quite shaken by the incident.
My fault, I ran out and got knocked over. I was taken to hospital with a gash on the back of my head to which a small scar is still present nearly 19 years later.
My parents never prosecuted and they quite rightly called me an idiot for not looking. I don't recall any police involvment but would hate to the think the driver was peanalised in anyway, either by the police or his insurers.
They good things to come of this was when the Asda carrier bag full of sweets I got off the neighbouring kids and a better awareness around roads.
Hope nothing comes off it OP and hope you are ok to, as I imagine you are quite shaken by the incident.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff