Am I liable??

thenudeone

colino wrote: »

Yes your husband is liable

Just because someone is injured does not automatically mean that the driver is liable.

For example, if you hit another car after having a heart attack you are not automatically liable, and your insurers may not automatically pay out.
http://www.brianiddon.org.uk/speeches/20081119_RoadTrafficAccidentCompensationBill.pdf
http://www.claims4nofee.co.uk/guide/accidents--fault-guide-2.html
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/travel/traffic_accidents.htm#accidents_caused_by_driving_illegally

Insurance is there to cover claims when the driver is liable in law, i.e. careless or negligent; but your insurers can decide to pay out rather than argue the case. You don't have the choice.

NeverAgain_2

...Just because someone is injured does not automatically mean that the driver is liable...

That is true, but my best guess here is parents of Downs' Syndrome boy will walk away with a few quid.

And it looks as if the OP will never accept her husband ran over the boy, even though her husband ran over the boy.

Gene_Hunt_2

NeverAgain wrote: »

...Just because someone is injured does not automatically mean that the driver is liable...

That is true, but my best guess here is parents of Downs' Syndrome boy will walk away with a few quid.

And it looks as if the OP will never accept her husband ran over the boy, even though her husband ran over the boy.

No he didn't the child just went under his wheels.:rotfl:

Tilt

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

No he didn't the child just went under his wheels.:rotfl:

And that's funny is it?

Gene_Hunt_2

Tilt wrote: »

And that's funny is it?

Oh, where did you go? Off to give some more poor advice.;)

Harry_Flashman

It seems I made a fundamental mistake regarding where the cyclist was. My apologies.

mikey72

I'm still not sure we have this quite right, as the op has mentioned the cyclist being between parked cars, and the reversing sensors not picking him up.

As far as we know through the op's husband never went backwards, and the lad was in front of the back wheels, so maybe there is still something missing here.

Gordon_Hose

mikey72 wrote: »

I'm still not sure we have this quite right, as the op has mentioned the cyclist being between parked cars, and the reversing sensors not picking him up.

As far as we know through the op's husband never went backwards, and the lad was in front of the back wheels, so maybe there is still something missing here.

Yeah, he fell off his bike, thus putting him on the floor by the back wheel.

mikey72

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Yeah, he fell off his bike, thus putting him on the floor by the back wheel.

Yes, on the road in front of the rear wheel.
Why would the op's husband be surprised the reversing sensors hadn't picked him up? I wouldn't have thought they could possibly have picked him up from what we have sumised.

"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!!"

NeverAgain_2

..."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!!"...

That fits.

Child falls off bike and rolls, un-noticed, between rear and front wheels of the car, but much nearer the rear wheels.

Husband pulls away, squashing child.

The OP - and her husband - seem to think they should be absolved of all blame because the child went under the car without the husband knowing.

The husband has not been charged, so he has been absolved of all criminal blame, but civil liability for insurance is not quite the same thing, as he is finding out.

Except the pair of them won't accept that, either.