Am I liable??

bigjl

Not your fault mate, stand by me i know it to be true govner.

There we go sorted.




However from the simple fact that the car moved forward, and therefore the parking sensor wouldn't activate then having them is unimportant, and the fact that the boy was in front of the wheels so that your husband had to reverse back to get off his arm means that he had driven onto his arm.

The entire details of the accident are unknown to us, the Police are not animals and could see that your husband didn't mean to harm the boy and therefore they probably deemed any prosecution as not being in the public interest.

Arguing and moaning on a forum will not change the fact that your husbands car drove over the boys arm, this is a fact, if your husband had not driven forward then the boy wouldn't have been run over.

I understand that your husband was almost certainly looking in his left mirror when he went to pull away and for that fraction of a second the boy must have slipped or fallen under the car, this is an accident.

However the fact is the young boys arm was driven over, and sadly by your husband, he will obviously feel upset about this. It could happen to anybody.

Your Insurance will pay out as your husband is unfortunately liable for the injuries sustained by the young boy, it would be different if the boy had fallen off and ended up in the same position if your husband was driving along the road, perhaps if the young boy had slid off the pavement onto the road, then he would in all likelyhood not be held responsible from any personal injury claim.

From a personal point of view I would have been aware if a boy had fallen off his bike next to my vehicle. Especially as you say there where loads of people surrounding the vehicle. Or was the young boy wearing a cloak of silence or invisibility.


Perhaps the OP should put themselves in the position of the young boys family, you seem to view the boys disability as part of the reason for the incident as you think he remained under the car waiting to be picked up.

If somebody parked half on the pavement drove away and went over your foot would you say it was all your fault or sue the driver, I think we can all have an opinion on that.

optimus_primera

Like a lot of posters have said,the Police have dealt with the 'intent' side of things, ie there was no intent, therefore no action was taken against him.
Now the family have made an insurance claim against your hubby,who sorry to say is liable, as he did actually cause injury to the child, whether he intended to is not in question, and of no concern to the familys legal team.

mikey72

If he was caught under the front of the rear wheel, as your husband went forward, and then he backed up to release him, he was trapped under the middle of the car, on the drivers side, by your husband?

how would the parking sensors in the bumpers have picked him up?
if he was under the door the other child came back to shut, why didn't he say anything?
why did he risk making it worse by taking a chance he could roll forwards, and not just phone the emergency services to free him?
I agree he did not do it intentionally, but unfortunately, he is still liable.

geri1965_2

This has got to be a wind up.

ElkyElky

If anything, the little boy and his family deserve some compensation for what they went through. What if the boys family had to take time off work to take him to hospital, do you still think you shouldn't help his family recoup some of the money they've lost as a result of it?

The fact remains that you and your car caused physical harm to another innocent and helpless person. It'll affect you financially but it has most likely affected the little boy much more with pain. They deserve a good few grand in my opinion.

hahaugetscrewedbyurbanks

ElkyElky wrote: »

If anything, the little boy and his family deserve some compensation for what they went through. What if the boys family had to take time off work to take him to hospital, do you still think you shouldn't help his family recoup some of the money they've lost as a result of it?

The fact remains that you and your car caused physical harm to another innocent and helpless person. It'll affect you financially but it has most likely affected the little boy much more with pain. They deserve a good few grand in my opinion.

You must be kidding, no? If his parents knew that "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" then its his parents fault - they let him play on his own on a bloody street which is where one usually would expect to come across things called cars or even monsters called lorries. If anything its the poor driver who should feel he lost something through no fault of his own.

Harry_Flashman

SVM wrote: »

Pedestrains have right of way, not cars.

But wasn't this child on a bike before he fell under the vehicle? Therefore he's a cyclist and shouldn't be on the pavement just as a car shouldn't.

skiddlydiddly

The child wasn't a pedestrian but a cyclist and over a certain age (about 11 or so, can't remember exactly) you aren't allowed to ride on the pavement so both are in the wrong.
Horrible situation for all involved, hope it never happens to me.

Gene_Hunt_2

skiddlydiddly wrote: »

The child wasn't a pedestrian but a cyclist and over a certain age (about 11 or so, can't remember exactly) you aren't allowed to ride on the pavement so both are in the wrong.
Horrible situation for all involved, hope it never happens to me.

Can you give us something to support that?

skiddlydiddly

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Can you give us something to support that?

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

From the highway code, no mention of age there but there was a fair bit about it on the news a couple of years ago so I'll have a look.


Had a look for 5 mins and had enough now as it seems to mostly hearsay and opinions rather than referring to any law.I was walking down the pavement recently and a kid nearly knocked my daughter over on his bike, I gave him a bollocking and he looked really annoyed saying "my dad says I have to as its dangerous on the road".True enough.