📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Damage from debris in road

168101112

Comments

  • john342
    john342 Posts: 24 Forumite
    edited 1 November 2013 at 9:46PM
    How you drive or what your opinion of how other people should drive is irrelevant. What I am asking is for facts, not what your personal opinion on how people should drive is.
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    First:

    a claim for pothole damage where the council wasn't aware of the hole won't be successful. In this case, unless you can show that the contractor knew the rock was there and didn't move it then there'll be no case.

    Second (and more relevant):

    You keep saying that it's impractical to drive so you can stop safely for an obstacle such as this.

    All I'm saying is that that's exactly how I, and several others on here, aim to drive. And we're not the ones with a rock-shaped hole in our sump.

    Make of that what you will.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    I would suspect that the chances of getting the contractor to accept any sort of liability are virtually zero.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    john342 wrote: »
    How you drive or what your opinion of how other people should drive is irrelevant. What I am asking is for facts, not what your personal opinion on how people should drive is.

    Very true.

    My opinion is irrelevant.
    Your opinion is irrelevant.
    The only relevant guide is the Highway Code, specifically rule 126.

    However, that has already been dismissed as inconvenient...
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    john342 wrote: »
    How you drive or what your opinion of how other people should drive is irrelevant. What I am asking is for facts, not what your personal opinion on how people should drive.

    No, it's not irrelevant. If a competent driver would have been able to avoid the rock then the damage is as a result of the driver's lack of competence, and how the rock got there is immaterial.

    Clearly, at the speed she was going, if a child had stepped out from in front of the lorry she was passing she also wouldn't have been able to stop safely.

    She also greatly exacerbated any damage by not stopping to investigate the considerable impact needed to put a hole in a sump as any reasonable person would have done.

    She also negligently (by not checking for damage after a considerable impact, as a reasonable person should) continued to drive while depositing a great deal of oil on the road, causing danger to others by that negligence.

    You won't accept any of the above, and that's your right. But you asked for opinion on the chance of compunsayshun for her serial lack of competence, and that's what you're getting.
  • john342
    john342 Posts: 24 Forumite
    Iceweasel wrote: »
    This thread has lost it's way.

    The workers did not 'deposit' rocks or anything else on the 'highway'. Depositing requires it to be a conscious act. Any rocks or stones in the road was accidental, and they were cleared.

    Depends on the definition of 'deposit'.

    Unfortunately the OP's mother happened along and drove over a rock, instead of stopping, waiting for oncoming traffic to pass and then continue on her way.

    The police were of course correct in stating that if rocks were left in the road that would be an offence. But they did not leave them - they swept the road.

    If they had packed up all their gear and gone away leaving rocks that would have been a different thing altogether. That is what the police were on about.

    Depends on the definition of 'left'.

    But I don't think this spill and then clear up is anywhere near 'Deposited a rock on the highway and left it there to the interruption of any user of the highway'.

    In the section of the act quoted it does not mention anything about leaving, just depositing.
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Very true.

    My opinion is irrelevant.
    Your opinion is irrelevant.
    The only relevant guide is the Highway Code, specifically rule 126.

    However, that has already been dismissed as inconvenient...

    I am not dismissing it. All I am saying is why would it apply? There are numerous similar situations where clearly it does not apply (potholes) so what makes this rock different?
  • Paradigm
    Paradigm Posts: 3,656 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ILW wrote: »
    I would suspect that the chances of getting the contractor to accept any sort of liability are virtually zero.

    Maybe, maybe not. Claiming off the Contractor is the way I would go but it could be a battle.
    Always try to be at least half the person your dog thinks you are!
  • john342
    john342 Posts: 24 Forumite
    You've not explained why it would not apply in the many successful claims for pothole damage. What is special about the rock in terms of being able to stop?

    Also the issue of the child is totally different. See my posts in relation to balance of risks of performing an emergency stop.

    I do agree she should of stopped after the rock hitting, although the garage has not determined if any further damage has been caused aside from that caused by the initial impact.
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    No, it's not irrelevant. If a competent driver would have been able to avoid the rock then the damage is as a result of the driver's lack of competence, and how the rock got there is immaterial.

    Clearly, at the speed she was going, if a child had stepped out from in front of the lorry she was passing she also wouldn't have been able to stop safely.

    She also greatly exacerbated any damage by not stopping to investigate the considerable impact needed to put a hole in a sump as any reasonable person would have done.

    She also negligently (by not checking for damage after a considerable impact, as a reasonable person should) continued to drive while depositing a great deal of oil on the road, causing danger to others by that negligence.

    You won't accept any of the above, and that's your right. But you asked for opinion on the chance of compunsayshun for her serial lack of competence, and that's what you're getting.
  • vaio
    vaio Posts: 12,287 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    earthstorm wrote: »
    so you would want a worker to step out infront of busy traffic to pick up rocks/rubble......

    Yep and I'd also want his employer to have a safe system of work in place to both prevent rocks getting into the road in the first place and also to allow safe and speedy clearing if plan A fails for some reason

    We did a heap of work in power station ash yards a few years, their procedure was that any vehicle leaving with loose materials on board must be securely "sheeted" and go through a "wheel wash" machine at the site exit to prevent mud and ash being deposited on the public highway.

    It's not rocket science
    earthstorm wrote: »
    .....Anyone should be aware that where their are construction sites their will be an element of rubble/dust etc. so caution should be taken at all times......

    and construction sites need to be aware that if they fail in their duty (common law and under the CDM regs) to prevent rubble/dust/rocks to escaping onto the highway then they are (or can be) responsible for the consequences
  • Joe_Horner
    Joe_Horner Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    john342 wrote: »
    You've not explained why it would not apply in the many successful claims for pothole damage. What is special about the rock in terms of being able to stop?

    Yes I have. A claim for pothole damage won't succeed unless it's shown that the council knew about it and ignored it. Only at that point is any negligence established. The mere fact of a pothole existing doesn't make a claim whether you hit it or not.

    Personally, I've also managed to avoid pothole damage in all my years of driving (and without causing any rear-end shunts by emergency stops as well!). Maybe that's just half a million miles of blind luck or, just maybe, it is possible to avoid these things if you're not lining up the excuses for it not being your fault before it even happens.
    Also the issue of the child is totally different. See my posts in relation to balance of risks of performing an emergency stop.

    No it's not. The moment you have to do an emergency stop, you've failed in terms of safe driving. Drive with that attitude - which doesn't need to be slow, just appropriate speed - and the chances of ever needing to do one becomes vanishingly small.

    This is where speed limits are harmful (which istr is where I came in). They foster the idea that "I was under the magic number so it wasn't my fault"
    I do agree she should of stopped after the rock hitting, although the garage has not determined if any further damage has been caused aside from that caused by the initial impact.

    Unfortunately, if she continued until it actually ran out of oil she will have done damage. Hopefully not enough to destroy the engine, but it will have at least reduced its life.
  • Iceweasel
    Iceweasel Posts: 4,884 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Joe_Horner wrote: »
    No, it's not irrelevant. If a competent driver would have been able to avoid the rock then the damage is as a result of the driver's lack of competence, and how the rock got there is immaterial.

    Clearly, at the speed she was going, if a child had stepped out from in front of the lorry she was passing she also wouldn't have been able to stop safely.

    She also greatly exacerbated any damage by not stopping to investigate the considerable impact needed to put a hole in a sump as any reasonable person would have done.

    She also negligently (by not checking for damage after a considerable impact, as a reasonable person should) continued to drive while depositing a great deal of oil on the road, causing danger to others by that negligence.

    You won't accept any of the above, and that's your right. But you asked for opinion on the chance of compunsayshun for her serial lack of competence, and that's what you're getting.

    I can see that words like reasonable and competent are not going down well with the OP.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.