Claim against Pedestrian

InsideInsurance

In cases of car accidents involving motorbikes filtering (eg car pulls out of side road and is hit by filtering motorbike) then both drivers are held partially liable (70/30 against the car in the bracketed example from memory)

Pedestrians are liable for their actions however motor vehicles will almost always have a higher duty of care. A former associate admitted running straight into the road and was hit by a bus and even then he was only found 50/50 liable for the accident.

If you/ your son (if he lives away) have home contents insurance, speak to them about it as the PL section providing cover and they will negotiate as appropriate. What is said at the scene in terms of who's liable is totally irrelevant - after all your son is not a liability expert - what is relevant though is comments about what happened, so if your son said he ran out without looking it would count against him.

mattyprice4004

Hang on a sec. Assuming the sin was at fault, your son damaged someone else's property and you think he might not be liable?

Granted, if there's a dispute over liability then fair enough. But if your son did cause the accident then of course he is liable - he damaged someones bike!

Why should the biker lose out because your son can't cross the road properly?

antrobus

InsideInsurance wrote: »

In cases of car accidents involving motorbikes filtering (eg car pulls out of side road and is hit by filtering motorbike) then both drivers are held partially liable (70/30 against the car in the bracketed example from memory)

Pedestrians are liable for their actions however motor vehicles will almost always have a higher duty of care. A former associate admitted running straight into the road and was hit by a bus and even then he was only found 50/50 liable for the accident.

Or take this case:-

Spiller-v-Brown (1999) LTL 20.7.99
Claimant hit by Defendant’s car whilst she was crossing a road - she had alighted from a bus and attempted to cross the road from in front of it. Defendant was driving in the same direction as the bus and overtook it whilst it was stationary at the stop - unable to take evasive action and struck the Claimant.

CA HELD It was clear from the transcript of evidence the Defendant had not seen the Claimant until split seconds before the accident occurred. On that basis the Trial Judge was entitled to find the Defendant was negligent by failing to keep a proper look-out since had he kept a proper lookout, he would have seen the Claimant emerge from in front of the bus.

Trial Judge was wrong not to find the Claimant contributory negligent. Green Cross Code Para. 30 (detailed at paragraph 7 of the Highway Code) stated a pedestrian should never cross the road directly behind or in front of a bus, but should wait until the bus had moved off and the road could be seen clearly in both directions. The Claimant was under a duty of care to herself to ensure that it was safe for her to cross the road – 50% would be the proper assessment of each party’s liability.

General point: it would very unlikely in the OP's case that a court would find either party 100% liable. As far as any motorcylist filtering through stationary traffic in an urban enviroment such as central London is concerned, it would be a forseeable risk that a pedestrian might seek to cross the road in front of you. The fact that said motorcylist hit the pedestrian with sufficient force to cause £1800 worth of damage to their bike would be a good indication that they were travelling too fast.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

...
If you/ your son (if he lives away) have home contents insurance, speak to them about it as the PL section providing cover and they will negotiate as appropriate. What is said at the scene in terms of who's liable is totally irrelevant - after all your son is not a liability expert - what is relevant though is comments about what happened, so if your son said he ran out without looking it would count against him.

In the absence of any such insurance cover, I imagine that the motorcylist's insurance company would soon lose interest in pursuing matters once they are faced with a counterclaim and informed that pedestrian in question is a penniless student without any insurance of his own.

Hintza

On Page 28 of the Highway Code, under rules for drivers and motorcyclists (88), Filtering is mentioned as follows:

‘Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers can see you in their mirrors. Additionally when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

Could be argued the motorcyclist was negligent.

George_Michael

Hintza wrote: »

Could be argued the motorcyclist was negligent.

Without having any idea of the facts of the accident, it's totally impossible to state who was at fault which is why a copy of the police accident report is needed.
If the police thought the rider was negligent, this should be stated or inferred in the report.

A motorcycle travelling at only 10 - 15mph would have more than enough force to knock someone over and injure them.
The bike may only have been a couple of feet from the gap where the OP's son emerged from, and if they were behind a high sided vehicle such as a 4X4 or people carrier, it may have been impossible to have seen them until they were right in front of the motorbike.

bod1467

George_Michael wrote: »

and if they were behind a high sided vehicle such as a 4X4 or people carrier, it may have been impossible to have seen them until they were right in front of the motorbike.

In which case the motorcyclist should have been going at walking pace at most - you MUST be able to stop within a distance that you can see hazards. A pedestrian appearing within stationary traffic is an expected hazard.

Remember - I am a biker and would normally take the biker's viewpoint. But the scenario you pose would still place some of the blame on the biker.

Unless or until we have the full facts then we can only surmise.

Hintza

George_Michael wrote: »

Without having any idea of the facts of the accident, it's totally impossible to state who was at fault

Hence the word "could".

shaun_from_Africa

In which case the motorcyclist should have been going at walking pace at most

Many years ago in my motorcycling days, I used to ride a Honda CX500 which was a fairly heavy machine.
Even riding this at walking pace it had enough weight behind it that it probably would have injured someone who stepped in front.

System

It may also be the case that the left hand lane traffic had stopped but if there was a second lane that may have been flowing freely.

It is common to see people end up standing between 2 lanes because the right hand one doesn't have a break in the traffic.

fluffnutter

All vehicle users have a responsibility to give way to pedestrians. We don't have the crime of jay-walking in this country and someone on foot has as much right (more so) to be in the road as a motorised vehicle. That aside, some people seem to have a death wish and you're stupid if you wander into roads without looking but, even so, I think the onus is on the driver or rider to be aware of pedestrians and take defensive action to avoid an accident.

Personally I think the insurance company is trying it on and I doubt there's much (if any) legal support for their stance.