Interesting

[Mr E]

I wonder what the collective make of this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/4069913.stm

Usual BBC bias as usual. Parents of the poor lad killed made to be victims and the driver the criminal.

But, the driver managed to gain (limited) compensation after a no fault accident that killed the lad who (reading between the lines) stepped out in front of him.

Cold? Heartless? Probably.

But fair?

[hertsbiker]

Poor kid, poor family. But deffo poor driver. Should have got a lot more than that, must have been awful to knock someone over.

[turbobloke]

Mr E said:

...stepped out in front of him...

If somebody steps out in front of a car within the thinking distance for that legal speed, then there should as a matter of absolute certainty be no blame or other legal / insurance consequence to the average driver involved.

There is by definition no time to react in any way, it would be humanly impossible. To take the situation towards its limits, even if you slow to 30 in a 40 because there 'might' be an 'unseen' and unpredictable hazard ahead that you couldn't reasonably anticipate, there's always the thinking distance for 30 to contend with - and keep that line of reasoning up and we'll all be stationary.

[ATG]

I find this story rather hard to take at face value. How can the driver have been suing the parents?? The "boy" was 18. Surely the parents can't be held accountable for his actions?

I wonder if the BBC hack has missed the point, probably intentionally, and that what has actually happened is that the driver was suing the boy's estate for compensation and that the boy's parents were either the beneficiaries or the executors of the estate. If this is the case, then the driver was really suing the boy himself. This would be entirely reasonable if the boy had indeed caused the accident and if the driver had indeed suffered a demonstrable loss of earnings. It doesn't appear that anyone is blaming the driver for the accident, but given he dropped his claim for compensation for loss of earnings, one does have to question the merit of that part of his case.

[welsh blackbird]

ATG said:

I find this story rather hard to take at face value. How can the driver have been suing the parents?? The "boy" was 18. Surely the parents can't be held accountable for his actions? I wonder if the BBC hack has missed the point, probably intentionally, and that what has actually happened is that the driver was suing the boy's estate for compensation and that the boy's parents were either the beneficiaries or the executors of the estate. If this is the case, then the driver was really suing the boy himself. This would be entirely reasonable if the boy had indeed caused the accident and if the driver had indeed suffered a demonstrable loss of earnings. It doesn't appear that anyone is blaming the driver for the accident, but given he dropped his claim for compensation for loss of earnings, one does have to question the merit of that part of his case.

The driver made a claim against the parents' household insurance, as the lad lived with his parents at the time of the accident.

[Mr E]

ATG said:

but given he dropped his claim for compensation for loss of earnings, one does have to question the merit of that part of his case.

A valid and decent point indeed.