Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

I never suggested the biker was at fault. But he will have insurance to cover his damages. The police are saying it was an accident from the evidence available. So where is the basis for a claim against the pedestrian? Certainly not for the damage to the bike because thats what he has insurance for. The only possible claim would be for un-insured losses and to get anywhere with that, you need to prove negligence and it seems there will be a police report that shows there was none.

OP may like to think about consulting a solicitor on this as it looks like you are going to get all sorts of conflicting advice on here. In the meantime, I would not respond to any correspondence from the TP or his insurers.

Why should he claim off his insurance if someone else is at fault?

He has every right to claim off someone else if he is not to blame.

Tilt

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Criminal law is not the same as Civil Law though.

I know that! But the police report will count as evidence in a civil court and carry some weight.

DCodd

This is not a controlled crossing (if the link supplied is correct). There seems to be a substantial straight of road prior to the junction and if, as the OP has suggested the left hand lane was clear when his wife started to cross then I can see no reason why a collission happened. Unless the OP's wife didn't look properly before crossing or the biker was speeding or pulled out of the stationery traffic waiting to turn right?

Where a crossing is not controlled the Pedestrian should follow the Green Cross code and the road user should be driving/riding appropriately for the conditions. The question is who did what.However, I would suggest it matters not whether the traffic lights were green or not as it is not a pedestrian controlled crossing?

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Why should he claim off his insurance if someone else is at fault?

He has every right to claim off someone else if he is not to blame.

Blimey you've changed your tune! A few posts ago, you were saying the pedestrian has right of way when crossing!

Where is the evidence that says the pedestrian was at fault? There would need to be some CCTV footage showing negligence on the pedestrian's part to make a strong case for the biker. Don't forget she is heavily pregnant as well so she has mitigating circumstances. can you honestly see a judge awarding losses against her when the bike has insurance?

johnfarquhar74

Tilt wrote: »

I never suggested the biker was at fault. But he will have insurance to cover his damages. The police are saying it was an accident from the evidence available. So where is the basis for a claim against the pedestrian? Certainly not for the damage to the bike because thats what he has insurance for. The only possible claim would be for un-insured losses and to get anywhere with that, you need to prove negligence and it seems there will be a police report that shows there was none.

OP may like to think about consulting a solicitor on this as it looks like you are going to get all sorts of conflicting advice on here. In the meantime, I would not respond to any correspondence from the TP or his insurers.

There was no police report when my claim went to court. The other party admitted obstructing the rider that was on my bike but denied any form of liability? My bike was insured 3rd party only and suffered a lot of superficial/cosmetic damage and a minor fault that rendered it unroadworthy without a repair. Rather than be left out of pocket I pursued a claim, I was initially advised to claim against the rider of the bike(not me) but once it became clear that the pedestrian was not denying he obstructed the rider, deliberately, the claim went against them.
As I said previously, it went to the small claims court where the Sheriff heard both sides and in no time at all, instructed the pedestrian to make payment to cover damages, although I don't think it was correct of the sheriff at the time, he berated the pedestrian for wasting everyones time, especially when he did not deny his liability.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

I know that! But the police report will count as evidence in a civil court and carry some weight.

But the police report focuses on prosecution of the motorist. They haven't done that so he has done nothing wrong.

johnfarquhar74

Tilt wrote: »

There would need to be some CCTV footage showing negligence on the pedestrian's part to make a strong case for the biker.

In my case there was no CCTV evedience and 1 independent witness

Tilt wrote: »

Don't forget she is heavily pregnant as well so she has mitigating circumstances.

Which are? Pregnancy doesn't make you stupid. Does the OP mention how close to term she was, even still, if they were large and slow I wouldn't imagine she'd put her own life and more importantly, her unborn baby's life at risk.

Tilt wrote: »

can you honestly see a judge awarding losses against her when the bike has insurance?

The biker may only have 3rd party insurance. Some of those new plastic fantastic bikes can sustain a fair bit of expensive superficial damage when dropped from a standstill, never mind a slow speed spill.

Tilt

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

But the police report focuses on prosecution of the motorist. They haven't done that so he has done nothing wrong.

The police report should say who did what and how. also, I would be surprised if the the junction was not covered by CCTV and that the police would of viewed it. But according to the OP the police have said 'no one was to blame' which I agree is strange as it leaves the possibility that some other factor caused the 'accident'. But the fact remains that to make a successful claim against the pedestrian will require evidence of some sort to show she was negligent. If the police report suggests she was then the biker is half way there but if not then the judge will obviously take into account what is in the report and any mitigating circumstances that may exist. Being heavily pregnant would certainly count as one.

Again, I suggest the OP consults a solicitor who specializes in road traffic insurance claims. Bickering amongst ourselves and expressing different opinions will not help the OP.

Tilt

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

In my case there was no CCTV evedience and 1 independent witness

And also no police report apparently. Your case may be totally different.

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

Which are? Pregnancy doesn't make you stupid. Does the OP mention how close to term she was, even still, if they were large and slow I wouldn't imagine she'd put her own life and more importantly, her unborn baby's life at risk.

Quite true. But it may dictate her maneuverability etc. We also don't know for sure (as there is no evidence) whether the biker was speeding for example.

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

The biker may only have 3rd party insurance. Some of those new plastic fantastic bikes can sustain a fair bit of expensive superficial damage when dropped from a standstill, never mind a slow speed spill.

Thats his choice so not the pedestrian's fault. And you go on to say exactly why bikers perhaps should have fully comp insurance. Who do they claim against if the bike falls over and gets damaged?

adouglasmhor

Tilt wrote: »

And also no police report apparently. Your case may be totally different.



Quite true. But it may dictate her maneuverability etc. We also don't know for sure (as there is no evidence) whether the biker was speeding for example.



Thats his choice so not the pedestrian's fault. And you go on to say exactly why bikers perhaps should have fully comp insurance. Who do they claim against if the bike falls over and gets damaged?

If there was any sugestion that he was speeding surely the police would have tried to prosecute?