Motorcyclist suing
Discussion
I can't find a link to the story. Listening to Radio 2 today, on the news roundup one of the headlines was about a motorcyclist who was seriously injured when a boy playing 'chicken' stepped in front of him, and was subsequently hit.
The boy unfortunately died of his injuries, but the motorcyclist lived. The motorcyclist is now sueing (I didn't catch who exactly, but presumably the family) in order to try and set a legal precedent that his life was endangered and his motorcycle damaged by the actions of this child, and that (presumably the family) they should pay for the damage.
Thoughts? My initial reaction was "GOOD, ABOUT BLOODY TIME!".
The boy unfortunately died of his injuries, but the motorcyclist lived. The motorcyclist is now sueing (I didn't catch who exactly, but presumably the family) in order to try and set a legal precedent that his life was endangered and his motorcycle damaged by the actions of this child, and that (presumably the family) they should pay for the damage.
Thoughts? My initial reaction was "GOOD, ABOUT BLOODY TIME!".
A couple of weeks ago i was driving along and a girl (13 or so years old) ran into the side of my car, dented the wing, broke the ariel and wiper arm mechanism, she was knocked out and a broken bone.
I was told it would be morally wrong to try to claim against her or her family, but i was thinking why, so reading this i would say why not. If you are driving and are responsible, a pedestrian can claim against you, why shouldnt a driver be able to claim if it is the pedestrian at fault.
Now that the can of worms is open, i will stand back
I was told it would be morally wrong to try to claim against her or her family, but i was thinking why, so reading this i would say why not. If you are driving and are responsible, a pedestrian can claim against you, why shouldnt a driver be able to claim if it is the pedestrian at fault.
Now that the can of worms is open, i will stand back
Yep serves them right, it's not just the damage to the car either. Mentally knocking down or killing anyone is damaging. unfortunatly my uncle knocked down and killed a little boy playing chicken. Even thou it wasn't at all his fault doing under the limit, good road conditions etc he still is affected with it and probably will be all his life.
Edited by wildsea on Thursday 28th December 15:27
Parrot of Doom said:
My initial reaction was "GOOD, ABOUT BLOODY TIME!".
My initial reaction too, but don't believe the climate is yet right for a change of precedent in favour of road users and especially at odds with the 'rights' of pedestrians or any related party not in control of a motorised, traceable, taxable vehicle.
Unfortunately I suspect the case will be thrown out and the existing anti-motorist bias maintained.
Hope I'm wrong.
Sense ofproportion required it seemsto me. Yes, the motorcyclists life was endangered, no,the car drivers wasn't. The kid who ran in front of the bike died, the girl who hit the car didn't.
I wouldn't pursue in either of these cases, the first because the kids family would be having enough grief coming to terms with their loss without having his culpability rammed down their throat, the second because I was not personally endangered. But if I was riding a motorcycle, and a pedestrian did something damn stupid which caused me serious injury, you can be sure I would sue.
I wouldn't pursue in either of these cases, the first because the kids family would be having enough grief coming to terms with their loss without having his culpability rammed down their throat, the second because I was not personally endangered. But if I was riding a motorcycle, and a pedestrian did something damn stupid which caused me serious injury, you can be sure I would sue.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
TB, the house insurers will deal with the claim, not the parents..... - if not, then it's likely to be a lawyer that deals. I am sorry, but just because the consequences were tragic for the family because of their kid's stupidity should not absolve his estate from responsibility.....
Absolutely.
Pedestrian's fault = pedestrian's (or family or estate) responsibility to fix any damage.
All there is to it really.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tonks, I know from a legal/technical point of view that you are quite correct. I'm just saying that personally, this is how I'd play it. Its a karma thing.
ETA And his parents my only have buildings cover anyway.
Edited by tallbloke on Thursday 28th December 15:38
tallbloke said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tonks, I know from a legal/technical point of view that you are quite correct. I'm just saying that personally, this is how I'd play it. Its a karma thing.
You'd pay for the damage to your vehicle (whether directly or through lose of NCB/increased premiums) because someone else walked in front of you, through no fault of your own?
megy said:
A couple of weeks ago i was driving along and a girl (13 or so years old) ran into the side of my car, dented the wing, broke the ariel and wiper arm mechanism, she was knocked out and a broken bone.
I was told it would be morally wrong to try to claim against her or her family, but i was thinking why, so reading this i would say why not. If you are driving and are responsible, a pedestrian can claim against you, why shouldnt a driver be able to claim if it is the pedestrian at fault.
Now that the can of worms is open, i will stand back
I was told it would be morally wrong to try to claim against her or her family, but i was thinking why, so reading this i would say why not. If you are driving and are responsible, a pedestrian can claim against you, why shouldnt a driver be able to claim if it is the pedestrian at fault.
Now that the can of worms is open, i will stand back
I will when it happens to me, too bloody right
graham@edinburgh said:
tallbloke said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tonks, I know from a legal/technical point of view that you are quite correct. I'm just saying that personally, this is how I'd play it. Its a karma thing.
You'd pay for the damage to your vehicle (whether directly or through lose of NCB/increased premiums) because someone else walked in front of you, through no fault of your own?
I have more than one bike. The kid only had one life. I'd be glad I still had mine.
Yes, I'd just walk away from it.
This may all sound a little extreme but it's nothing compared to this classic example from the states:
A motorcyclist ran a red light and got hit by a car. The car driver sued the rider for hitting him and the rider countersued for the same reason.
The rider also sued the dealership for selling him a motorcycle that was too fast and dangerous for his experience to ride and better still, sued the manufacturer because the bike was not fitted with either ABS or airbags.
The world's gone mad I tells ya!
A motorcyclist ran a red light and got hit by a car. The car driver sued the rider for hitting him and the rider countersued for the same reason.
The rider also sued the dealership for selling him a motorcycle that was too fast and dangerous for his experience to ride and better still, sued the manufacturer because the bike was not fitted with either ABS or airbags.
The world's gone mad I tells ya!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Exactly, now imagine the other way round - you had died, would you be happy that your missus suffered for money as well ...
Obviously, what other people decide to do in the event of my demise would be something over which I'd have no influence. Having said that, you have changed the scenario dramatically, and it may indeed be appropriate to sue if the consequences were reversed.
Jesus... this is a kid FFS!
He was being stupid in a kid, and no doubt when.. IF.. he grew up he would realise how stupid it is and wouldn't do it.
Okay, so then one could sue the parents, but for what? Bringing up a kid who acts like a naughty boy? Not keeping him tethered all the time? I'm sure the parents were more distraught than anyone in this.
He was being stupid in a kid, and no doubt when.. IF.. he grew up he would realise how stupid it is and wouldn't do it.
Okay, so then one could sue the parents, but for what? Bringing up a kid who acts like a naughty boy? Not keeping him tethered all the time? I'm sure the parents were more distraught than anyone in this.
If someones 18 year old son/daughter crashed their car into your car and they died would you claim for your injuries, big or small?.
The answer is yes, the problem is you have to prove negligence for a claim to be successful, If the child is dead and had no insurance and no money( which we can assume they haven't) then could you prove negligence on the parents?.
I doubt it.
The answer is yes, the problem is you have to prove negligence for a claim to be successful, If the child is dead and had no insurance and no money( which we can assume they haven't) then could you prove negligence on the parents?.
I doubt it.
slowly slowly said:
If someones 18 year old son/daughter crashed their car into your car and they died would you claim for your injuries, big or small?.
The answer is yes, the problem is you have to prove negligence for a claim to be successful, If the child is dead and had no insurance and no money( which we can assume they haven't) then could you prove negligence on the parents?.
I doubt it.
The answer is yes, the problem is you have to prove negligence for a claim to be successful, If the child is dead and had no insurance and no money( which we can assume they haven't) then could you prove negligence on the parents?.
I doubt it.
True, it's hard to prove negligence in this case - except if the kid was too young to be left unsupervised outside the home.
Edited by fido on Thursday 28th December 15:55
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff