Daughters horse hit a car

vax2002

Here is what I would do.
Ignore him.
When you finally get a nasty letter, reply stating that as the driver of the car he made a conscious decision to overtake an animal on the highway, he did so incorrectly within the guidelines of the highway code "quote it" which you construe as driving without due care and attention.
He was under no obligation to overtake the horse, doing so was his decision and therefore he takes responsibility for any actions incurred in doing so, the fact that his vehicle hit the horse in the course of its riding demonstrates this.
If the matter is pursued you will be making a report to the police in relation to the manner of the incident and lack of consideration given by his driving in overtaking the horse.

That will be the end, niceness or not, money is money...

alastairq

As it would be "my" road and I would have the right of way, the fault would be yours.

As I said earlier, I am constantly amazed at the lack of road knowledge on this forum.

erm..yeah, right............



BTW, it isn't 'your road'.....the lawful requirement for a driver to exercise 'due care and attention' see's to that one.

There is much confusion between how a Magistrate's Court would view things..and how insurers arrive at equitable solutions.

Two very different approaches to the same situation.....one concerned with compliance with the law, the other, concerned with division of blame for compensatory reasons.

Sometimes the two views are aligned...at other times, the insurance view sometimes beggars belief.

Flyboy152

vax2002 wrote: »

Here is what I would do.
Ignore him.
When you finally get a nasty letter, reply stating that as the driver of the car he made a conscious decision to overtake an animal on the highway, he did so incorrectly within the guidelines of the highway code "quote it" which you construe as driving without due care and attention.
He was under no obligation to overtake the horse, doing so was his decision and therefore he takes responsibility for any actions incurred in doing so, the fact that his vehicle hit the horse in the course of its riding demonstrates this.

The liability rests with the rider, as has been demonstrated in court.

His vehicle did not hit the horse, have you not read the title to the thread?

The obligation to pass would be based on "making reasonable progress on the road." If the horse and cyclist were not making "reasonable progress," the driver had the obligation to pass. In fact, it could be said, the riders had the obligation to allow him to pass safely.

If the matter is pursued you will be making a report to the police in relation to the manner of the incident and lack of consideration given by his driving in overtaking the horse.

That will be the end, niceness or not, money is money...

What law did the driver break? What corroborating evidence would there be for the police to take any action?

The OP has already admitted fault, on her daughter's behalf, to recommend that they shirk their moral responsibility, is very poor advice indeed.

Flyboy152

alastairq wrote: »

erm..yeah, right............



BTW, it isn't 'your road'.....the lawful requirement for a driver to exercise 'due care and attention' see's to that one.

There is much confusion between how a Magistrate's Court would view things..and how insurers arrive at equitable solutions.

Two very different approaches to the same situation.....one concerned with compliance with the law, the other, concerned with division of blame for compensatory reasons.

Sometimes the two views are aligned...at other times, the insurance view sometimes beggars belief.

Which opens the doors to successful appeals. Insurance companies regularly come unstuck, when they attempt to decide what is and what isn't a law.

cyclonebri1

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

but if it ever got to court the judge will side with the highway code and split it 50/50.

where did the driver go wrong NOT GIVING A DECENT AMOUNT OF SPACE BETWEEN HIM AND THE RIDER as stated in the highway code.
where did the rider go wrong TAKING A NERVOUSE BUT NOT DANGEROUS HORSE OUT ONTO THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY.

if the highway code is "just a guide" i suppose i do not have to givway to my right on roundabouts, ignor oneway systems and not give way at junctions then.

Maybe the driver couldn't give more space?, and if the horse backed into his car he was obviously going very slow and the horse did have room for manoever??
Morality is more important than legality here in my view, if you can afford a horse, owned or not, you should be prepared to accept responsibility for it.

Being a money saving site I suspect I might be in the minority tho';)

alastairq

when they attempt to decide what is and what isn't a law.

With insurers, compliance with a law..or not, by one of the parties involved doesn't mean all liability for compensation is against that party.


But if a party can be shown to have...for example...failed to comply with a road sign....or indeed, has faced charges in a court regarding the particular incident...then the percentage of liability will fall more heavily against them, for insurance purposes.

for insures, I get the feeling it's all about 'who pays how much for what'..rather than 'rights or wrongs'...

alastairq

if you can afford a horse, owned or not, you should be prepared to accept responsibility for it.

the same could be said for the owner of a car?

alastairq

if the highway code is "just a guide" i suppose i do not have to givway to my right on roundabouts, ignor oneway systems and not give way at junctions then.

The Highway Code [or HC for short] contains legal requirements.

It also contains advice, which although maybe not encompassed by the Law, may still be used in evidence against a road user.

This very fact is enshrined in the small print on the cover of the HC....

However, to be fair, even the writers of the HC can get it wrong at times...and this is why it is updated and 'improved' every year....

[anyone noticed that last years issue of HC had a road marking removed?

No?

The HC discovered, a certain road marking, whose meaning head been apparently clear, but assumed....had not actually ever been included in the Regulations covering road markings, their size, dimensions and meaning....therefore had no official meaning, nor could it be enforced....

yet, surprisingly, Local Authorities seem to be still using it ....hmmmm.

skiddlydiddly

alastairq wrote: »

the same could be said for the owner of a car?

Hardly, a horse is an expensive leisure activity for most people-unless you count cowboys?
Cars for most are a means to get to work and around the country.

Hintza

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If you are blocking the road, whether with livestock, or apple trees, again that would be your fault.

So what you are saying is that if I stop and you run into the back of me then it is my fault? You might find thi is not the case.

You know one of the nice things around here is folk in the country generally try to drive with a little consideration for the countryside, wildlife, livestock etc.

Guess that doesn't happen in your neck of the woods.