Pedestrian son hit now making a claim...
Discussion
He has the right to be aware of stupid pedestrians, and not run them over. As he has waived that right, he now has the right to let the insurer deal with the aftermath. And to face the fact that it will be cheaper for the insurer to deal rather than fight this, and that his contract allows them to make the best decision for them.
If your son feels strongly about this; i.e. that it was not his fault and that this should be a claim which his insurers defend, then he needs to get on the phone and tell them that ASAP.
If what you say is correct in that this pedestrian stepped out without looking, was wearing all black, etc then he has a good chance of fighting it. The insurers will need to get hold of the police report to see what that says - if she spent the night in hospital, there will definitely be a report and she will have provided them with a statement. Was your son spoken to by the police? Did they take a statement from him? Just because the police did not take any action, this is not indicative of who they feel was, or was not, to blame.
However, be warned that at the end of the day, he is unfortunately looking at a case where it is one persons word against another, if there are no independent witnesses.
Insurers do not like to fight cases where there is "litigation risk" (i.e. a risk they will lose at Court - going to Court causes significant expense and additional costs which the insurer will have to pay if they (you) lose) but if that were my case (and I deal with such cases on a daily basis), I'd be wanting to see the police report and her statement before I made any decision as to who was to blame.
If what you say is correct in that this pedestrian stepped out without looking, was wearing all black, etc then he has a good chance of fighting it. The insurers will need to get hold of the police report to see what that says - if she spent the night in hospital, there will definitely be a report and she will have provided them with a statement. Was your son spoken to by the police? Did they take a statement from him? Just because the police did not take any action, this is not indicative of who they feel was, or was not, to blame.
However, be warned that at the end of the day, he is unfortunately looking at a case where it is one persons word against another, if there are no independent witnesses.
Insurers do not like to fight cases where there is "litigation risk" (i.e. a risk they will lose at Court - going to Court causes significant expense and additional costs which the insurer will have to pay if they (you) lose) but if that were my case (and I deal with such cases on a daily basis), I'd be wanting to see the police report and her statement before I made any decision as to who was to blame.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
146 seems to cover it. I usually paraphrase to my kids as "drive like everyone else is an idiot, and out to kill you or commit suicide in new and interesting ways". Your son just learnt the hard way, that's all. He could always countersue for the screen replacement excess and the raised premiums?I might have read you explanation incorrectly, but it would appear your lad was on the major road and turned into a minor road.
If so then a pedestrian has priority at the junction if she was walking alongside the major road. This was decided in a fairly recent, >5 years, case.
Logically it is sound. The pedestrian is also on the major road. The footway is restricted to use by pedestrians, foot passengers if you will, but in all other respects is part of the major road.
If so then a pedestrian has priority at the junction if she was walking alongside the major road. This was decided in a fairly recent, >5 years, case.
Logically it is sound. The pedestrian is also on the major road. The footway is restricted to use by pedestrians, foot passengers if you will, but in all other respects is part of the major road.
As someone else mentioned above, it will be likely be cheaper for the insurers to settle the claim than dispute it.
They have to look out for themselves as well as their customers.
Perhaps if he had a dash cam with footage showing it would have been impossible to avoid hitting the pedestrian then they would be more willing to fight it.
They have to look out for themselves as well as their customers.
Perhaps if he had a dash cam with footage showing it would have been impossible to avoid hitting the pedestrian then they would be more willing to fight it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Until it's all settled, yes. It's an outstanding claim that they may have to pay out on.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Of course they can. The question is whether it's worth them doing so...?anonymous said:
[redacted]
Any witnesses? Or just he-said-she-said? Did she say it was her fault just to him?Just because the police aren't prosecuting him, doesn't mean that he's not (perhaps at least partially) at fault. It just means they aren't prosecuting him, because there isn't enough evidence.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
His insurers are handling a claim that's been made against him. If they dispute it, and the legals on either side can't agree, it'll go to court.BertBert said:
By what perverse use of logic could you get to that conclusion?
When turning into side road and a pedestrian is already crossing, they have right of way. It is also the drivers responsibility to be aware of any potential dangers and their surroundings. You need to anticipate everyone is out to get you. One of the advantages of been a motorcyclists as well as a driver.Hemingway said:
BertBert said:
By what perverse use of logic could you get to that conclusion?
When turning into side road and a pedestrian is already crossing, they have right of way. It is also the drivers responsibility to be aware of any potential dangers and their surroundings. You need to anticipate everyone is out to get you. One of the advantages of been a motorcyclists as well as a driver.
Still, she should have listened to Dave Prowse.BertBert said:
I still don't get it. She had right of way. She daftly stepped into the oncoming car, thought he was in the wrong, has now found out she wasn't and wants to claim. How on earth can that make her at fault??
Perhaps I didn't write it clearly. I was suggesting that at the time of the accident she thought she was at fault because she didn't know about her priority. It was only a suggestion because we don't really know the circumstances.I suspect she has been approached by / suggested to contact / an insurance no-win-no-fee type case. Generally these kinds of accidents where a car hits a pedestrian are relatively good money (certainly more than whiplash) and generally a win-win case.
Car hits person. Same that most car vs bicycle accidents end up being the cars fault, even if they are not.
I'm not sure on the legal position of alerting your insurers to an accident involving a pedestrian.. I wouldn't have thought so assuming no damage to the vehicle was done (outside of the windscreen for which there is no disclosure?)
Unfortunately this is what people do. They are vultures.
FWIW (nothing) - I do not think, from the description, that the driver was at fault whatsoever. I think there is too much of a free-pass on pedestrians - roads are for cars and if you step into a road you should frigging look where you are going - I think they call it natural selection.
If you want to fight it, speak to your insurers NOW and let them handle it - I'm sure they will check over the statements from the hospital, police, and the pedestrian and driver at the time. I'm sure if the notes say "pedestrian admitted fault" then it will likely be thrown out - That being said I am not sure what this will do to your insurance policy... probably under some element of third party at a guess. But yes, it will be an "at fault" accident, as any claim, until it's closure - this should be clarified with your sons insurance.
I would not suggest going at it singlehandedly outside of the insurance because then you may end up in a situation where you are liable directly for any costs as opposed to the insurance company covering them.
Car hits person. Same that most car vs bicycle accidents end up being the cars fault, even if they are not.
I'm not sure on the legal position of alerting your insurers to an accident involving a pedestrian.. I wouldn't have thought so assuming no damage to the vehicle was done (outside of the windscreen for which there is no disclosure?)
Unfortunately this is what people do. They are vultures.
FWIW (nothing) - I do not think, from the description, that the driver was at fault whatsoever. I think there is too much of a free-pass on pedestrians - roads are for cars and if you step into a road you should frigging look where you are going - I think they call it natural selection.
If you want to fight it, speak to your insurers NOW and let them handle it - I'm sure they will check over the statements from the hospital, police, and the pedestrian and driver at the time. I'm sure if the notes say "pedestrian admitted fault" then it will likely be thrown out - That being said I am not sure what this will do to your insurance policy... probably under some element of third party at a guess. But yes, it will be an "at fault" accident, as any claim, until it's closure - this should be clarified with your sons insurance.
I would not suggest going at it singlehandedly outside of the insurance because then you may end up in a situation where you are liable directly for any costs as opposed to the insurance company covering them.
On the blog post of 5 December 2015 the motoring Lawyer dscussed the Matt Stockdale dashcam tomfoolery and I think mentioned something along the lines of 'contributory negligence', mooting whether Stockdale's conduct could have contributed to that scrape with the truck on the M1 and any suing could come back and bite him on the bottom. That was my take on it.
Sadly the link now goes to the his update blog about the BBC's response to Matt Stockdale.
http://www.legal-lifeboat.co.uk/bbc-respond-to-mat...
I don't know if Alan Scott-Davies is the chap to help you if you wanted to dispute it.
So it was dark, it was at a temporary road works, the pedestrian didn't look and had headphones on? So did she take responsibility for her own safety?
What actions did the pedestrian take to ensure her own safety and wellbeing?
She may have had right of way and stepped out without looking but that's no good if a HGV is feet away from the junction and turning in.
I'm not sure pedestrians can abdicate themselves from taking responsibility for their own actions?
Thinking about that blog post on 5 December 2015, is 'contributory negligence' a US Ambulance Chasers thing that is yet to cross the Atlantic?
Sadly the link now goes to the his update blog about the BBC's response to Matt Stockdale.
http://www.legal-lifeboat.co.uk/bbc-respond-to-mat...
I don't know if Alan Scott-Davies is the chap to help you if you wanted to dispute it.
So it was dark, it was at a temporary road works, the pedestrian didn't look and had headphones on? So did she take responsibility for her own safety?
What actions did the pedestrian take to ensure her own safety and wellbeing?
She may have had right of way and stepped out without looking but that's no good if a HGV is feet away from the junction and turning in.
I'm not sure pedestrians can abdicate themselves from taking responsibility for their own actions?
Thinking about that blog post on 5 December 2015, is 'contributory negligence' a US Ambulance Chasers thing that is yet to cross the Atlantic?
Edited by carinaman on Thursday 21st January 01:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff