Car crash advice needed.

dacouch

ukjoel wrote: »

I was under the impression the councils spent considerable amounts of money paying for cars damaged by potholes and for people falling over wonky pavements.

Just curious that as its in a car the OP is at fault but if he slipped in the gym car park as it hadnt been gritted and there were no warning signs that would be a call to claims direct?

Think OP question is fair and harsh to jump on him for asking a question.

The simple reason is that the law makes you liable if the accident could have been avoided by the actions of a "reasonable person". This is a common sense approach that take into account the practicalities and the costs.

It is extremely unlikely that the OP would be able to successfully prove the owner of the road could have reasonably avoided his accident and thus succesfully claim off them.

The same rule applies to pedestrians, your example of the people sueing the councils for pot hole damage. You would be surprised at how few actually succeed as the same rules apply. The council just need to demonstrate they check the road at regular intervals (Which could be once a month or even less). The successful claimaints are the ones that are damaged by potholes the council are aware of and have not repaired in a "reasonable" amount of time

Dave101t

hardly standard weather conditions tho, 'reasonable care' is their responsibility, and reasonable ability to drive is your responsibility.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Well this is the point. The damage to my car is zilch. A number plate is needed and there's minor scuffing on the bumper which, given the car's age, I don't really care about. It won't give me sleepless nights.

The gates are damaged though and will need to be done. My thinking was that surely as they haven't made an effort to grit, maintain the road surface or any such like for residents or paying gym members...

But yep, will call the insurance tomorrow and let them take care.

I despise people like you.

kataklysm

Forum Etiquette

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

Just a little reminder...

SLITHER99

I don't get the animosity. I'm not looking for a payout and have never sued anyone in my life! All I'm saying is that the management company should be reasonable. I drove sensibly to the point of I believe the accident would have happened regardless given their failure to make roads they know are in constant use reasonably safe. As they didn't, they can repair their own fancy gates. It was their choice to install an excessive speed hump which I believe caused me to loose grip in the first place.

I fully expect chances are my insurance will pay and that's what it's there for... but as I don't know the law, it's a reasonable question!

hothothot_3

this would fall under the banner of negligence law. Do they have a duty of care over you? maybe. Could they have reasonably anticipated this problem and taken steps to remedy it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence a short overview.

neilmcl

SLITHER99 wrote: »

I drove sensibly to the point of I believe the accident would have happened regardless given their failure to make roads they know are in constant use reasonably safe. As they didn't, they can repair their own fancy gates. It was their choice to install an excessive speed hump which I believe caused me to loose grip in the first place.

I fully expect chances are my insurance will pay and that's what it's there for... but as I don't know the law, it's a reasonable question!

And it was your choice to take it at such an excessive speed as to make the car jolt at the road hump (your words) and lose control on the ice. As I said earlier, clearly you didn't drive to the conditions.

SLITHER99

Again... 15mph... excessive?

neilmcl

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Again... 15mph... excessive?

Yes, if hitting a road hump/sleeping policeman in icy conditions, which your accident evidentally proved.

iceze

Car parks and private roads are normally for the convenience of the intended users and usually no liability is accepted (such as theft in a car park). Making sure the surface is gritted every time it snows isn't always really reasonable. We've had grit shortages before and even the roads here that are not a main road are never gritted. Would I be able to hold them responsible if I skidded and crashed into something? I'm not so sure.

You could try arguing so but its doubtful that your argument would stand. At the end of the day you hit a stationary object, which means you were not driving to the appropriate road conditions.