Help! Clipped by car on zebra crossing in carpark

lilac_lady

My neighbour was driving slowly in a supermarket carpark one dark rainy evening when 2 women darted in front of his car on a"zebra" marked crossing in front of the store. Visability was poor and the women were under a shared umbrella with coat hoods up. The car clipped one of the women, the other woman shouted abuse at the driver, the police were called, my neighbour was read his "rights" but heard nothing more about it.

My neighbour says that he would have contested any claim as the women dashed onto the crossing without looking for traffic around them. Sometimes it's not the driver's fault.

Steve_xx

lilac_lady wrote: »

My neighbour was driving slowly in a supermarket carpark one dark rainy evening when 2 women darted in front of his car on a"zebra" marked crossing in front of the store. Visability was poor and the women were under a shared umbrella with coat hoods up. The car clipped one of the women, the other woman shouted abuse at the driver, the police were called, my neighbour was read his "rights" but heard nothing more about it.

My neighbour says that he would have contested any claim as the women dashed onto the crossing without looking for traffic around them. Sometimes it's not the driver's fault.

Yes, you're right. It isn't always the driver who is wholly at fault and each case has to be examined on its individual merits. Sometimes it is the case that pedestrians have contributed to the incident by their acts or omission to act and therefore their claims may be reduced to take account of their own contribution to the negligence.

A person being 'clipped' by a car in a supermarket car park or on the public highway may not always be entitled to compensation. This is especially the case where a person has been 'clipped', ie touched by a moving vehicle, but not suffered injury as a result. This is where claims in negligence so often fail. It is critical that the person who is 'clipped' is actually injured and has suffered as a result.

The talk here of white paint lines is largely irrelevant. The fact remains that everybody owes everybody else a 'duty of care' and this duty is not restricted to public areas.

Wig

derrick wrote: »

As would crossing at ANY place!

Not exactly, because the presence of the crossing in the carpark should have an extra effect on the driver to expect people to be using it as it is intended. If the view of the crossing for example was at all obscured the driver would have to slow down. Whereas if whilst driving on any other place where there is no crossing, there are cars /vans at the side of the road, there would not be the same degree of caution required.

biscuitdunker

derrick wrote: »

But in this case it is not a "zebra crossing", just paint on the "road", there are no belisha beacons, no studs, no zig zag markings.

The point is that any driver should be aware that this is a place where pedestrians are most likely to cross in front of them. They should therefore be able to stop in time.

ben500

lilac_lady wrote: »

My neighbour was driving slowly in a supermarket carpark one dark rainy evening when 2 women darted in front of his car on a"zebra" marked crossing in front of the store. Visability was poor and the women were under a shared umbrella with coat hoods up. The car clipped one of the women, the other woman shouted abuse at the driver, the police were called, my neighbour was read his "rights" but heard nothing more about it.

My neighbour says that he would have contested any claim as the women dashed onto the crossing without looking for traffic around them. Sometimes it's not the driver's fault.

Any driver be it of a motorised vehicle or peddle powered device such as a cycle or tandem is responsible for ensuring that they approach a pedestrian crossing {which this clearly is} at a safe speed taking into account any weather or other road conditions, with the ability to halt in good time should they need to. It does not have to be a zebra or pelican crossing.

biscuitdunker

Gosh, I'd hate to see how some of you lot behave in carparks. Oh, there's an old lady on that "zebra crossing" no need to slow down or anything, it's not a real zebra crossing, just lines painted on the ground. If I hit her, it's her own fault for using a fake zebra crossing..!

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Rotor wrote: »

Bad news Pew !
There was an article in the Telegraph a few years ago by the QC Fenton Bresslaw on this issue.
A pedestrian has an absolute right to cross at a zebra crossing and the motorist should give way. The example he used was even if a child ran across in front of a car the driver would still be liable because he should expect and predict that the crossing could be used and have slowed to a safe speed beforehand.
Sorry OP : I've no idea how this relates to crossings on private land

You clearly do not understand what a Zebra crossing is.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

"Be more careful next time"?? He was on a zebra crossing, i

No he wasn't.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

computershack wrote: »

Good luck in finding anything Pew Pew Has No Clue posts that's remotely correct.

Congratulations on not being able to speak English.

vikingaero

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

No he wasn't.

I think you have a problem understanding what a zebra crossing is! Yes a zebra crossing on a public highway will have all the prescribed orders and notices in place. On private land which the public have access to it is reasonable to assume that a zebra crossing with all the markings and beacons if necessary is still a zebra crossing. The main difference is that the private landowner has no need to apply for approval for a crossing. You're just taking the technical term of a legitmate zebra crossing to a ridiculous level.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....