Cyclist hit our car...what can we do?

elantan

thought you were leaving george?

glenderg

It,s like wives he just can,t stop himself. He:rotfl: He

peterbaker

mystic_trev wrote: »

...It's a funny old World!

Certainly where Americans are involved trev, that's for sure!

Wasn't there another equally notorious case where someone was painting his kitchen ceiling in the states and couldn't quite reach a bit in the middle so he opened the fridge door and balanced with one foot precariously supported on the open fridge door?

You can guess what happened.

I always understood that he successfully sued the fridge manufacturer for not affixing a clear notice on the fridge that it should not be used for standing on (including the open door) and got some huge sum awarded in punitive damages.

We were banned from quoting for US Products Liability insurance risks because they were so unpredictable.

ben500

mystic_trev wrote: »

I'm getting confused so I'll change the tempo with a little anecdote.

I used to work in Insurance and specialised in "Products liability Insurance" mainly in the States. Products liability covers any losses caused by the manufacture of goods.

We had an interesting claim on a lawnmower manufacturer about 20 years ago.Two guys had been out drinking and were obviously much the worse for it. One said to the other that he had to go and get his hair cut, to which the other replied "come back to my house and i'll do it for free! So after afew more drinks they returned to the guys house who then decided to get his hover mower out, ask his mate to sit still and balance it over hids head.
Yeah, you can guess what hapened next, he took a lump of the blokes head off causing severe brain damage.

The case went to Court (in California) with the Plaintiffs suing the Lawnmower manufacturer under "strict liability in tort" which basically means - you made it, so unless you can prove otherwise it's you fault! The reasoning for claiming was that the Lawnmower instuctions didn't say that it should't be used for cutting hair !!!!!

The Plaintiffs actually won the case and were awarded $1,000,000 damages by the Court. It went to Appeal where ther case (rightly so) was thrown out!!

It's a funny old World!

I know bummer! Do you think I would have been better off going after the beer company?:rotfl: :rotfl: The damned hovermower doesn't even work anymore!

tigtag02

What about the brainless bird who popped her winebago (sp) into drive and went into the back to make a cuppa!!!

Not only did she win her case after eding up in a ditch BUT the company actually now write into there brochure that you realy shouldn't do that!!!!

My ALL time fav though is the lawyer who used his Ins Co to pay out on fire damage to the VERY expensive cuban cigars he smoked!! They paid out the counter sued him for arson - and won :j :j

peterbaker

I hadn't heard that last one :-)

I do hope Snaggles understands we took our cue from her last post and stopped talking about the case in point, and here we are just swapping humorous insurance stories for no particular reason other than to make everyone smile! Hope she's smiling too, but not too much or ROFL ... she's in a delicate condition!

woofwoofwoof

I'll admit to not having read every single post on this thread and this may have been said before but is it not generally the case that when a vehicle is leaving a 'side road' (driveway, laneway, carpark exit, etc) then that vehicle is deemed responsible for any accident that happens because you are supposed to make sure everything is clear before you proceed. I only say this because a couple of years back I was exiting a driveway and an 18 year old in a 3 week old car with personalised numberplates whacked the front bumper of my car. He was speeding but I ended up paying for the damage to HIS car as the insurance company said that it was my fault as I was exiting from a side road onto a main road. The boy could actually bring damages against you if he was so inclined.

tigtag02

woofwoofwoof wrote: »

I'll admit to not having read every single post on this thread and this may have been said before but is it not generally the case that when a vehicle is leaving a 'side road' (driveway, laneway, carpark exit, etc) then that vehicle is deemed responsible for any accident that happens because you are supposed to make sure everything is clear before you proceed. I only say this because a couple of years back I was exiting a driveway and an 18 year old in a 3 week old car with personalised numberplates whacked the front bumper of my car. He was speeding but I ended up paying for the damage to HIS car as the insurance company said that it was my fault as I was exiting from a side road onto a main road. The boy could actually bring damages against you if he was so inclined.

or maybe not peterbaker :mad:

peterbaker

Will you tell him or shall I? :-)

Sponge

peterbaker wrote: »

Hi Snaggles

This is a classic accident not unlike the ones in the government "Think Bike" advertisements, isn't it? Except the young lad was on the pavement.

First off I am a 50 year old motorist with speeding convictions, and I am also a London cyclist. I am also a parent of kids on bikes. I have also worked a long time in insurance including a stint in motor and liability claims. I have also travelled and seen how other countries interact with cyclists. I like to think I have a balanced view...

...In UK we have an absolutely awful implementation of cycle paths and priorities.I would rather my son risked hitting your car on the pavement than used a road where all sorts of nastiness is the norm in 2007...

...On the other hand, I accept the need to watch out for cyclists on the pavement when I am driving, because I am a cyclist who sometimes rides on pavements so I know the risk from both sides...

...Do you have protected No Claims Bonus? I do. And I think I would be tempted to let this one go. Was his bike undamaged? Maybe he was the luckier party so far, and just his pride was dented when he had to explain it to his Mum & Dad. He's learned a lesson. Maybe your husband has too...

...It isn't really a question of the law in this case. I think it's up to you. I am sure you get on very well with your neighbours. Think of it as your neighbour's number 1 son on the bike whom you normally smile and say hallo to. How might it be settled then?

A very sensible and intelligent reply which pretty much sums up the way I see it.

Regards

A Cyclist (that sometimes use the pavement)