Bike left on ground behind car - now crushed!

pendulum

Mim wrote: »

Completely wrong. The paperboy wheeled the bike from the house next door. He was at their door when my son went to his car and then dropped the bike behind the car to walk up our driveway.

Whichever way you look at it, your son failed to spot the paperboy approach the vehicle and leave the bike behind it. That is assuming your son was even in the car - the paperboy disputes this.

If your son wants to only pay 25% and the dad decides to put a claim in via car insurance, your son's going to get his !!!! kicked for additional premiums even if the claim is rejected (which it won't be) - if the claim goes 50/50 or 100% your son's fault then he's going to lose his NCB as well as have a fault claim. If he's unwilling to accept at least 50% responsibility for running over someone's property then that is what he deserves.

mikey72

Mim wrote: »

...........Anyway, my son has said to see what this repair cost will be. He said that in the interest of neighbourly harmony he may offer 25% of the cost as a good will gesture to end the matter ..............

If he is serious about going through his insurance, and they agree to represent him in court (I must admit I think they'll pay when they get threatened with action) don't admit liability like this, and don't start to bargain over how much you should pay.
Either take the offer for final settlement, or say no.
Otherwise you will weaken your case badly.

(He can't not tell his insurance, if he does have action taken against him, as the insurer is also liable.)

Badger_Lady

I don't want to dig at you, OP - this is one of those situations where you kinda think "that was unavoidable", and your son certainly wasn't deliberately negligent or malicious. But I can only comment on who becomes liable for such an unfortunate accident.

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Not if you're sat inside listening to the radio while de-misting / de-icing. Driver could have been rummaging in glove box at precise moment when paperboy lay down his bike. How many of us remember to go and check around the back of the vehicle a second time before pulling away? (I know that's no excuse but I'm talking reality rather than perfect world)

100% agree. I know that I wouldn't get out of the car and check again. But I would take (reluctant) responsibility for anything that happened as a result of my failure to do so.

In law, as far as I know, the driver is in charge of their vehicle and any damage that it causes to stationary objects / people. If the paperboy had suddenly cycled into your son's path while he was already reversing, I'd agree with you that it wasn't the driver's fault. But, as you've already said, the paperboy was nowhere near when it happened. Therefore your son damaged property and is solely to blame. Whether the bike was laid there before or after your son got into the car is irrelevant.

In the real world, I would add that the paperboy's positioning may have been a bit foolish. (I assume we're talking about a child here, with no experience of driving? Who we therefore can't expect to have the same kind of foresight that you or I would have.) So use that to negotiate the amount you pay, by all means.

Mim_2

mikey72 wrote: »

Wouldn't he had to have walked past the car, clearly in the floodlight, past your son in the car, dropping the bike behind the car, again in the floodlight, then walk up the drive in the floodlight, casting a big shadow on the car, if your son was already in the car, and had set off the security lights?
I'd take the 50/50 before it goes to court.

No, the paperboy came from the other direction so approached the back of the car. The floodlight is blinkered so that it doesn't light up the houses either side. My son said that he checked his rear view mirror and saw the paperboy as he started the engine, but couldn't have know that he'd dropped the bike.

gilbert_and_sullivan

So whats 50/50 on a run of the mill bike, £100?

I'd be paying that out and putting an end to this before it starts involving the insurer and goes as a fault claim against the driver and puts £300+ on next years renewal.

Someone mentioned the word 'honourbound' above, quite right, a rare enough word and a very rare quality these days.

marleyboy

I would be checking the damage to my car and claiming for any damages. What a stupid place to leave a cycle, lay down directly behind a car.

Had this have been a go-kart or shopping trolley, causing damage to the car, or moreso had this been left lay down on the road and an approaching vehicle hit it and crashed as a direct result it would be a different matter.

Honeydog

I don't get it. Your son knows that the bike was DROPPED and not THROWN but didn't realise it was THERE????????????????????

And if the bike wasn't there when your son got in the car that means the paperboy walked past the car with your son in it and your son didn't see him despite the floodlight!

Plus all of the paperboys I see on a daily basis while walking the pup or driving somewhere are going FAST! They don't want it to take all day.

This one appears to have ridden down the road got off his bike, dropped it on the road outside next door's house, picked it up wheeled it a few yards and then dropped it in the road again? Why not just lean it against a fence or wall or whatever you have outside your house?


<Columbo mode on> And just one more thing.... why didn't the paperboy shout 'Oi!' when he saw the car going backwards towards the bike he borrowed? <Columbo mode off>

I reckon car owner just came out in a rush, got into his car, shot backwards at a rate of knots and was oblivious to anything behind him! Poor obs. Bet he'll never do that again!

Honeydog

Ok I've just read what OP put while I was typing mine. That changes a bit of what I wrote just now but I still don't get why the paperboy didn't say anything and just let the bloke reverse over his mate's bike????????????????

photome

50 - 50 IMO.

If it was me driving thats how I would see it, but then again the damage to the car would also be 50 - 50

Mim_2

marleyboy wrote: »

I would be checking the damage to my car and claiming for any damages. What a stupid place to leave a cycle, lay down directly behind a car.

Had this have been a go-kart or shopping trolley, causing damage to the car, or moreso had this been left lay down on the road and an approaching vehicle hit it and crashed as a direct result it would be a different matter.

Exactly. I don't understand the attitude of some people immediately apportioning 100% blame on to my son as if he recklessly got into the car and screeched backwards burning rubber with no thought to life or limb despite me explaining the circumstances as thoroughly as I can! As a family we're a decent, moral law-abiding bunch and if my son felt the blame was entirely his, he'd have done the right thing by the lad at the time. The bike was put there after my son had got into the car and was impossible to see. None of us can see what he could have done differently and to even consider paying something towards the bike as a goodwill gesture is to his credit.

All road users have a duty of care - not just car drivers but cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians.