Claim against Pedestrian

Simon_M

Last September may son, who is a student was knocked down in central London by a motorcycle courier sustaining a number of injuries, including a cut head, he had ligament damage to his ankle and a puncture wound to his leg. He went to hospital straight away by ambalance. The motorcyclist was un-injured although his bike was damaged but he rode the motorbike away from the scene of the accident.

On Saturday 11/08/12 he recieved a letter from the motorcyclists insurance company with a copy of the bill for repairs stating that as my son had admitted the accident was his fault to Police then he is liable for repairs costing £1,800. He recalls talking to the Police before the Ambalance arrived but does'nt recall admitting it was his fault.

Are pedistrians liable for the damage they cause to vehicles in accidents?

Has anyone else experienced this?

Thank you for looking at this.

George_Michael

Are pedistrians liable for the damage they cause to vehicles in accidents?

If the pedestrian was at fault, I don't see any reason, legally or morally why they shouldn't be held liable and made to pay for the damage caused.

The first thing that your son should do is to get hold of a copy of the accident report from the police.
It all depends what this states as to what the next step should be.

geri1965_2

If you have household contents insurance there will be a section called 'Personal liability'. This means your insurance company will defend it on your behalf (or settle it if they feel it is appropriate).

What were the circumstances?

pinkshoes

Yes, they are!

A (drunken) pedestrian tripped over and went head first into the side of our car, causing a HUGE dent! We sent him the bill for the repair of the car. I think he claimed it on his house insurance or similar.

If your son was responsible, then he needs to pay. If he wasn't, then write back saying he was not at fault.

What actually happened?

Guardsman

Is it not common practice for a insurance company to try and claim costs.
If I was in your position I would get legal advice.

System

Contest it. If one of the injuries was a head injury then it's plausible your son was woozy at the time he spoke to the police so his statement can be disregarded.

I would refuse to pay. Seek legal advice. I would suspect they recommend you counter sue. I would be surprised if all 100% blame can be attached to one party.

paddyrg

I would contest it - or at the very least clear up what happened before anything else. If he was on the pavement for instance the situation is a million miles away from running across a motorway.

Not being judgemental here (well, ok, just a little bit), but there are few places in central London where most traffic can reach dangerous speeds, courier bikes often try to accelerate ahead at the lights, maybe even clipping the end of the red/as the amber starts to flash. There is a very real chance the bike was overspeed and came from nowhere. The accident report should tell you more about what the police recorded at the time. I would certainly point out that the cuts to the head were the result of head trauma so combined with the shock, etc as above. At the very least, make them work for it.

And if your lawyer does feel they have a case, there may be points along the lines of the claim being inflated by the repair agent and getting your own costing for the repairs...finding out what you are supposedly paying for!

Simon_M

Thank you for the replies.
It was around 6pm and he had'nt been drinking. he crossed the road between the cars as the traffic had stopped. He then found himself lying on the road with a group around him. He does'nt recall much more than this.

Guardsman

This may be useful
http://www.sites4bikes.com/Motorbike_filtering.htm

bod1467

Note the caveat (2nd last para) of that article though ...

Though this is a victory for motorcyclists as a whole, this is not a green light to filter recklessly, it is still a potentially dangerous activity if not done correctly and safely.

If OP's son did indeed suffer head trauma, and this is corroborated by the Police and/or Paramedic reports, then his statement allegedly admitting fault can easily be ruled as inadmissible. (Any half-decent lawyer should be able to sort that). Thus the claim falls until the other party can prove OP's son was 100% to blame.

PS - I am (was) a motorcyclist and used to filter where appropriate. I have seen some seriously dodgy manoeuvres by some bikers (especially couriers), so I would very much doubt that OP's son is 100% to blame.

bris

bod1467 wrote: »

PS - I am (was) a motorcyclist and used to filter where appropriate. I have seen some seriously dodgy manoeuvres by some bikers (especially couriers), so I would very much doubt that OP's son is 100% to blame.

I'm also a biker and it looks to me that the Op's son walked in front of the bike. Filtering is legal and as the traffic was at a standstill the bike looks like he was in the right to filter. Unfortunate yes, but I would say the son is to blame.
It's not the biker looking for the £1800, it's the insurance co that paid out, recovering their losses from the third party, this is normal practice, so please don't blame the biker.