Claim against Pedestrian

Made_in_London

As an ex London biker I have lost count of the number of times pedestrians have walked out between traffic without looking. A lot of them with huge headphones on.

In my humble opinion, if you step into the road without properly looking then you are responsible. If the bike was traveling along the pavement and hit your son, would you consider that your son was responsible?

People have accidents, always have, always will. It is just that people don't want to take responsibility anymore.

Guardsman

I'm a advanced rider and I will filter through traffic at a brisk pace if there is queue on a motorway/dual carriageway but if i'm filtering between slow moving but especially stationary traffic in a built up area then I will be going along at about 5 MPH just in case a pedestrian crosses the road or more often than not somebody opens a car door to see what's happening ahead.

When people see stationary traffic they then tend to think that all traffic has stopped and presume it's safe to cross.
There are bikers out there who give the rest of us a bad name and one of the worst culprits are couriers.

antrobus

Made_in_London wrote: »

...In my humble opinion, if you step into the road without properly looking then you are responsible. ....

Your humble opinion is neither here nor there. It is the opinion of the judiciary that matters. They seem to to think that people in charge of motorised vehicles owe a duty of care to pedestrians.

Like this man here...

Guardsman wrote: »

.. if i'm filtering between slow moving but especially stationary traffic in a built up area then I will be going along at about 5 MPH just in case a pedestrian crosses the road or more often than not somebody opens a car door to see what's happening ahead....

That's exercising your duty of care.

Hermione_Granger

antrobus wrote: »

Your humble opinion is neither here nor there. It is the opinion of the judiciary that matters.

Congratulations antrobus.
If there was a prize for the most arrogant post of 2012, I think you would be the winner.

Made in London's opinion is just as valid as mine, yours or guardsmans and an opinion is just that, an opinion and not fact or law.

They seem to to think that people in charge of motorised vehicles owe a duty of care to pedestrians.

And surely pedestrians have a duty of care to others, or do you honestly think that this isn't the case?

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-04.pdf

Pedestrian failed to look properly [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and [/FONT][/FONT]pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]was reported in 25 per cent of accidents. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
[/FONT][/FONT]

shaun_from_Africa

If it's only the opinions of "the judiciary" that matter, this forum may as well be closed down because to the best of my knowledge there aren't too many judges who answer queries or give advice and opinions on here.

antrobus

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Congratulations antrobus.
If there was a prize for the most arrogant post of 2012, I think you would be the winner.

Great news! What do I win?

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

...Made in London's opinion is just as valid as mine, yours or guardsmans and an opinion is just that, an opinion and not fact or law...

If the OP had wanted people's opinions, they'd have posted on the Discussion Time forum. They've posted a question on the Consumer Rights forum because they want help and/ or advice. It's not a question of the validity of anyone's opinion, for the simple reason that people's opinions don't assist in answering the OP's question.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

...
And surely pedestrians have a duty of care to others, or do you honestly think that this isn't the case?

They do indeed. Refer yourself back to post #14 in this thread and the cited case of Spiller-v-Brown (1999) LTL 20.7.99 and the reference to the decision that the "Claimant was under a duty of care to herself to ensure that it was safe for her to cross the road"

antrobus

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If it's only the opinions of "the judiciary" that matter, this forum may as well be closed down because to the best of my knowledge there aren't too many judges who answer queries or give advice and opinions on here.

As above really.

The OP has asked a question. Giving the OP your opinion on the rights and wrongs of the matter doesn't help answer the question. I don't see what's wrong in my pointing out that it doesn't answer the question.

shaun_from_Africa

The OP has asked a question.

And as it currently stands, the question relating to their sons accident can only be answered with opinions.

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

No one who has responded has any idea of the full circumstances surrounding the accident and without these facts, how is it possible to give a definitive yes or no to the question asked?
We can all say what we think might happen, but as already stated, by doing so we are just giving opinions as to different possibilities.

The only really correct answer that can be given is that some pedestrians might be held liable for damage caused by an accident and others might not.

pinkshoes

Simon_M wrote: »

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.

In which case, I would write back to them (recorded delivery or obtaining proof of postage) stating that given he was knocked unconscious in the accident, then he admitted no liability, and that given the motorcyclist was filtering through stationary traffic, then it was his responsibility to ride with due care and attention, and therefore liability for the accident was shared. In which case, if they are wishing to seek costs for damage to the bike, you will be counter-claiming with costs incurred due to the injuries sustained, which will come to £1800.

See what they say!

Made_in_London

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Congratulations antrobus.
If there was a prize for the most arrogant post of 2012, I think you would be the winner.

Made in London's opinion is just as valid as mine, yours or guardsmans and an opinion is just that, an opinion and not fact or law...........................

Thank you!

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If it's only the opinions of "the judiciary" that matter, this forum may as well be closed down because to the best of my knowledge there aren't too many judges who answer queries or give advice and opinions on here.

Thank you and spot on!

antrobus wrote: »

Your humble opinion is neither here nor there. It is the opinion of the judiciary that matters. They seem to to think that people in charge of motorised vehicles owe a duty of care to pedestrians.................

My humble opinion IS just as valid as yours.

I am not sure who "they" are but if you walk onto a road without looking, be prepared to be hit by a vehicle. That is a law; the law of probability. It is also common sense!

Given the number of options posts you have on this forum, it is disappointing to be attacked. You must read a lot of statute books to be so right all of the time. Maybe only you should be allowed to post an opinion answer and then we know that it must be factual.

My opinion is based on two main criteria:
Over 2 decades of riding a motorcycle and driving a car in London
and
The green cross code man.

The highway code has rules for pedestrians too.

The OP should be thankful that their Son survived this, not quibble about who should pay.

As an aside. I got hit by a young car driver a few years go when riding my motorcycle. I was stationary. The car hit me and pushed me under the car in front of me. I managed to walk away from that one although it caused a few thousand pounds worth of damage. The following day I got a call from the drivers mum telling me they didn't want their Son "ripped off" with a claim. The guy could have killed me and left my, then young, Son's Fatherless. All she was worried about was the cash.