Bike left on ground behind car - now crushed!

mikey72

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Tell the father you'll counter claim for damage to the car bodywork. All the holier than thous are bleating on about "what if it was a kid" etc but there is a big difference. A kid is taller and likely to be a moving object.

A reasonable person would not be expect someone to know there had been an object placed behind them in the time between checking and getting in the vehicle if the object was completely hidden from the drivers seat. The driver had already made all the checks required of him.

The paperboy had as much responsibility to place the bicycle in a safe place as the driver did to check. The driver checked and the paperboy obviously was in too much of a rush to bother to consider the possible outcome of putting a bike behind a car that someone had got in and turned the lights and/or engine on.

If it went to court that would be the view taken by the judge.

And when the paperboy says the engine wasn't running, the lights were off, and he left it propped up on the kerb on it's pedal?

Could be just as likely.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

sarahg1969

opinions4u wrote: »

So if a 3 year old had toddled past at that moment, does he have no responsibility?

Very possibly, yes. It's not that simple.

opinions4u

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Very possibly, yes. It's not that simple.

Exactly the point.

It isn't that simple.

It's also not as simple as turning round and saying "tough the bike shouldn't have been there".

Driver's have responsibilities to others. The paperboy cannot be expected to think "this car is going to drive off in the next couple of minutes" - however much we'd like to think he should.

sarahg1969

If the driver is certain that he checked around his vehicle before getting in and making his manoeuvre, and then the vehicle was then placed on the ground out of side after he entered the vehicle, then I think there's a good case for arguing that he was not at fault.

Mim_2

mikey72 wrote: »

And when the paperboy says the engine wasn't running, the lights were off, and he left it propped up on the kerb on it's pedal?

Could be just as likely.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Notmyrealname makes sense to me. I don't know why people are talking about hitting children or old people - that seems to be MORAL responsibility not LEGAL responsibility and not what I asked. My son wouldn't claim on his insurance as he'd lose his no-claims bonus which is a lot of money. Also, mikey72 I know it could come down to the paperboy's word against my son's, but my son wouldn't be parked up on the pavement.

mikey72

Mim wrote: »

Notmyrealname makes sense to me. I don't know why people are talking about hitting children or old people - that seems to be MORAL responsibility not LEGAL responsibility and not what I asked. My son wouldn't claim on his insurance as he'd lose his no-claims bonus which is a lot of money. Also, mikey72 I know it could come down to the paperboy's word against my son's, but my son wouldn't be parked up on the pavement.

Think before you go counter claiming though.
It's ok to type this sort of advice, when it's not you doing it.
All that'll happen is the boys dad will look on askmid, get the insurance details, and put in a claim.
Then he can go to the police, and claim your son drove from an accident without reporting it, or supplying his details.

thescouselander

opinions4u wrote: »

Exactly the point.

It isn't that simple.

It's also not as simple as turning round and saying "tough the bike shouldn't have been there".

Driver's have responsibilities to others. The paperboy cannot be expected to think "this car is going to drive off in the next couple of minutes" - however much we'd like to think he should.

Why not? Everybody has a responsibility with regards to safety and the paperboy's actions were at least partly negligent IMO - after all it appears that he did leave an obstruction in the highway. The paperboy isn't blame free here and that should be a factor when determining the level of compensation due for the wrecked bike.

Biggles

mikey72 wrote: »

All that'll happen is the boys dad will look on askmid, get the insurance details, and put in a claim.

He can't claim off your insurance, he can only claim off the car driver, who may either choose to settle it himself or to put it through his insurance.

Then he can go to the police, and claim your son drove from an accident without reporting it, or supplying his details.

All he is required to do is stop after the accident and supply his details if asked for them. He clearly did both of those things, as he has had a note put through his door, so the police won't be interested in the slightest.

mikey72

Biggles wrote: »

He can't claim off your insurance, he can only claim off the car driver, who may either choose to settle it himself or to put it through his insurance.

All he is required to do is stop after the accident and supply his details if asked for them. He clearly did both of those things, as he has had a note put through his door, so the police won't be interested in the slightest.

£4 for all the details off askmid.
You phone them up, log a claim, they contact the driver.
If the driver doesn't want to play, then the insurer either pays up, or at that stage the third party starts legal proceedings.
Either way the claim is on the records, and the ncd is suspended.

"should I give him my son's name if he asks?"
Take your chances on the second one.

C_Mababejive

I would not entertain anyone pushing intimidatory notes through my door. Tell him to FOAD and make a civil claim if he thinks he has one.