Am I liable??

slyracoon

Your husband is liable. Your husband ran over a pedestrian that was on the pavement, it dosen't get more clear cut than that. The fact he was lying on the pavement makes no defference, its probably the fact your husband parked on the pavement that caused him to fall from his bike.

If the accident had happened in the road then a portion of the blame could lie with the pedestrian

slyracoon

vaio wrote: »

No answer to my questions as yet and now the OP wants the thread removed.

Sort of defeats the point of posting in the first place

Obviously the OP hasn't got the answer they wanted and is in denial.

avstar

aml1977 wrote: »

I know of thousands of streets in which every householder has to park like this - streets are too narrow and its a residential area - we are only tallking about the edge of the drivers and rear passengers ( on the drivers side ) wheels here not the whole bloody car !!!
the child must have came from the passenger side anyway as if he was on the drivers side my husband or his friend would have seen him

From the more recent posts am I right in thinking the drivers side was parked on the pavement, so the passenger side of the car was in the road, and the boy was injured by the passenger side wheels?

In that case I think its prob worse than I thought as your husband was parked on the 'wrong' side of the road making it more difficult for him to pull out into traffic and to see what was going on in the road. Had he been parked on the correct side of the street he would have seen the boy in the road.

Again, I'm not having a go at you, just stating that your husband is in a very tricky situation and I think you should let the insurance deal with it.

macman

Either it was legal to park in that particular street with 2 wheels on the pavement or it was not, that's a perfectly clear-cut question that the OP could have clarified from the outset. What all the other car owners do is a complete irrelevance.
Clearly the police believe that no moving traffic offence was committed, or they would have charged him. That does not eliminate the possibility of a civil action, so the insurers should be left to deal with it-that's what you pay your premium for.
I can't see any details of what is being claimed and on what grounds.

Tilt

slyracoon wrote: »

Your husband is liable. Your husband ran over a pedestrian that was on the pavement, it dosen't get more clear cut than that. The fact he was lying on the pavement makes no defference, its probably the fact your husband parked on the pavement that caused him to fall from his bike.

If the accident had happened in the road then a portion of the blame could lie with the pedestrian

Have you read the thread properley? I can't see anywhere where the OP has stated that the child was on the pavement... can you point it out please?

Tilt

NeverAgain wrote: »

...your husband is liable...

If two people have a fight, the police charge the one who wins.

Your husband was in a big 4X4 which squashed a child, so your husband is the equivalent of the winner.

Happily for you as a family, the police took no action in your case.

Had they done so, it would have all but established your husband's liability.

As it is, your insurance company may feel this one is worth resisting, but that is up to them.

Injuries needing skin grafts are not minor.

If you come out of this only having to pay a few extra quid for car insurance, you should be thankful.

The consequences for your husband could have been much worse.

I can't see the police reconsidering after all this time, but if I was you I wouldn't rock the boat.

Sorry but i'm struggling to see the logic in this. Can you explain how you get to this conclusion or can you point to a case that you know of?

marlot

aml - Unfortunately this forum has a habit of becoming nasty (they would do well to stop and think whether they've ever made a mistake when driving. Have they always walked around their car before driving off?, etc).

The police have decided that your husband was not criminally negligent. That is important, and you should take comfort from that. But its not the full story, as you know.

The lawyers acting the little lad, and those acting for your insurance company will now have a debate about the level of civil liability which attaches to your husbands actions. The opposing lawyers will naturally say that the lad's injuries are entirely due to your husband's negligence. Your lawyers should be contesting that claim.

If they can't settle it between themselves then they can go to court and ask the judge to decide. The fact that he was parked on the pavement will be one of the things which counts against him - and could be deemed to make him partially responsible. Similarly, the fact that the parents weren't supervising the lad will probably count against them and make them partially responsible. This could well end up as a case where your husband's actions are deemed (say) 50% of the cause, and the lad's parents 50%. If it was agreed at 50:50, the claim put in by the lad's lawyers get cut in half - but they still get something.

Unfortunately, whether they pay 100% of the claim, or only 50% of it, your NCD bonus will be affected. I know that its hard but you need to try and move on. I know that I'd have trouble sleeping had I been involved in something like that and unfortunately I have no real advice to help. But I'd be asking the school about how your lad is coping emotionally - there are school counsellors available and he may benefit from seeing one if he's not sleeping. But don't go over the top - I remember seeing one of my classmates going under a bus (he too was OK eventually) and the fact that he was back at school in 3 months meant that we all put it behind us quickly.

NeverAgain_2

...If two people have a fight, the police charge the one who wins...can you explain the logic in this?....

If you and I have a fight, and you happen to cause serious injury to me, the chances are you will be charged, often regardless of who started it.

The car driver ran over the child, OK, he only moved a few inches, but this almost certainly makes him liable.

Had he been sat in the car and the child riding his bike at speed crashed into the car, the child - or its parents - might be liable.

I'm not sure about logic, but that's just how things are.

It seems the OP is upset because her husband looks like being blamed for this incident.

But given the circumstances, no-one is going to blame the child, so hubby is 'last man standing'.

That may or may not be fair, but again, it's just how it is.

I think the OP should count her blessings that husband is only being blamed for insurance purposes and not for any criminal offence.

He could easily have been charged, I'm not saying to do so would have been right or wrong, but realistically, it could have happened.

If she and her family can get away with a hike in insurance premiums and no more, that's a good result.

Tilt

NeverAgain wrote: »

...If two people have a fight, the police charge the one who wins...can you explain the logic in this?....

If you and I have a fight, and you happen to cause serious injury to me, the chances are you will be charged, often regardless of who started it.

The car driver ran over the child, OK, he only moved a few inches, but this almost certainly makes him liable.

Had he been sat in the car and the child riding his bike at speed crashed into the car, the child - or its parents - might be liable.

I'm not sure about logic, but that's just how things are.

It seems the OP is upset because her husband looks like being blamed for this incident.

But given the circumstances, no-one is going to blame the child, so hubby is 'last man standing'.

That may or may not be fair, but again, it's just how it is.

I think the OP should count her blessings that husband is only being blamed for insurance purposes and not for any criminal offence.

He could easily have been charged, I'm not saying to do so would have been right or wrong, but realistically, it could have happened.

If she and her family can get away with a hike in insurance premiums and no more, that's a good result.

So if we caused serious injury to each other we would both get charged then... interesting!

The reality of your scenario is that the inured party(ies) would have to press charges outside of that the police could arrest us both for afray. Weird comparrison to the OP's situation to be honest.

Gene_Hunt_2

aml1977 wrote: »

Hi All - Just wondering what your thought are

My husband was involved in an accident through no fault of his own.
After pulling up outside his friends house and dropping his friend and his friends 2 sons off after football training
he parked up bumping is front wheel (drivers side) and rear wheel on the pavement as it was one of those street where you have to park like that to allow cars to be able to drive down the road.
our car is a 4x4 jeep and its automatic so when he pulled in he put the car in park and put the handbreak on
his friend got out of the car and he turned and looked over his shoulder to make sure his friends 2 sons got out ok and the rear passenger side
he spoke to his friend for a few minutes through his window and then noticed that on of the boys had not shut the rear door properley and called him back to close the door properley
he then put the car into drive checked his mirrors and slowley edged off the kirb to make his way home.
as he edged off he heard a grinding sound and his froends son shouted that there was a bike under the car
as he was not actually driving just edging off the kirb - he immediately stopped and got out of the car
He found a young boy and his bike under the car and the boys skin on his arm was slightly caught under his rear wheel
he quickly got back into the car and reversed to free the boys skin and was deeply shocked at what had happened
ourt son was also in the car and was traumatised by what he was witnessing
the boy who was injured has downs syndrome and was taken to hospital where he had skin grafts to his arm but has since made a complete recovery
this young boy was know to often fall off his bike and stay on the ground until one of his parents picked him up and he didnt cry
we believe that while my husband had his back turned getting his friends son to close the door that this boy has fallen off his bike and gone under our car

our car has parking sensors on it so when my husband has been pulling away he must have been under the car as the sensors would have beeped to indicate there was someone or something there!!

My husband and my son were severley traumatised after this terrible accident and they both visited this boy often to check he was ok

the police concluded that this was a tragic accident and no further action would be taken.
this happened in June 2010 and in December we received a letter from our insurance company to say they are claiming on our insurance

We feel that my husband was not to blame for this and wonder how and if this is possible

our car has been examined by the insurance company and we have sent the police reports to them also
we have instructed our insurance co not to pay out as we feel he has done no wrong and did all he could do to ensure the rd was clear before begining to set off

this is still ongoing and our insurance is due for renewal in March so will this effect our insurance now aswel as my son and husbands mental state ???

I would appreciate your views on this and any suggestions you may have

thanks in advance

Is anyone going to tell the OP what they want to hear?:rotfl: