Cycling and a stone hit a car - am I liable??

janiebquick

The driver will almost certainly have windscreen insurance that will cover her for most of the repair cost. If she doesn't - more fool her. Do not offer so much as a penny.

Earlier this year, the car in front of me threww up a stone that cracked my windscreen. These things happen. It's a genuine accident,

tonitarzan

The car park owner unless you were tress passing. what was your reason for riding through the car park? was it public carpark or private?

tonitarzan

car park owners must carry out relevant risk assessments to make sure the carpark is safe for all users

lisyloo

car park owners must carry out relevant risk assessments to make sure the carpark is safe for all users

I don't think anyone can be expected to remove every single stone or piece of gravel. That's not reasonable.
It's just one of those things and the car owner either has to use their insurance or pay for the repair.
I doubt they'll have any job pursuing either the car park ower or the cyclist.
Unless there is something we don't know it doesn't sound like negligence.

ska_lover

losgiganteskid wrote: »

A windscreen is just that, a screen against the wind !! - a side,rear or front glass is all a windscreen People assume a "windscreen" is just the front glass.

I have never heard this before. The windscreen IS the front glass only...not the near side or off side windows.

Try ringing a windscreen specialist such as National Windscreens, and ask them to replace your windscreen...at no point will they ask you which windscreen you mean, as they will know what a windscreen is

magpiecottage

ska_lover wrote: »

As a question of morality, yes I would say you are liable - the windscreen would not have gone through if you hadn't been in the vicinity, so IMO it is your responsibility and it is morally wrong to expect the motorist to suffer the insurance excess fee.

The trouble with that logic is that the window would not have been broken if the driver had not parked in the vicinity either.

Or if the car manufacturer had not chosen to make it out of glass.

Or if the bike manufacturer had not chosen to put wheels on the bike.

Or if the council had not chosen to have a road there.

[Deleted User]

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Of course it depends on the nature of the stone and the circumstances as a whole, but you're more than likely wrong about this. The car park owner would only have a duty under section 2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, that being a duty to take all steps that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that lawful visitors are reasonably safe. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where a car park owner would be liable for stones on the ground of the car park, unless it had been reported as a specific issue previously or the stone was part of debris that was causing a clear hazard. The duty on occupiers is to take reasonable steps, it is not to be perfect, and chances are in this scenario that car park owner hasn't done anything unreasonable in failing to sweep up a solitary stone that caused damage to someone's car.

It's well known and understood that loose debris in an area where cars are driving or cyclists are riding can be dangerous. It's similar to pot holes and speed bumps damaging cars. The car park owner is absolutely liable here, and the car owner's insurance should be pursuing them for the cost of the repair.

To the OP, the advice you have been given by others is correct. You are not responsible, you should not pay anything. The car owner will pay their excess, typical £75, and then their insurance company should go after the car park to recover even that.

antrobus

DELETED USER wrote:

... The car park owner is absolutely liable here,...

Ah, so you think this car park is the one car park in the country that doesn't have a notice up that proclaims 'Users of this car park do so at their own risk and the management cannot accept liability for accidental loss or damage'?:)

magpiecottage

DELETED USER wrote:

It's well known and understood that

you need to remember that you have no idea if somebody posting "advice" on this forum has any idea what they are talking about.:rotfl:

However, the for a claim to succeed, the claimant (in this case the car owner) needs to demonstrate that whoever they claim against, was negligent - that is they did not take reasonable care to ensure the safety of others - and that the claimant's losses were a reasonably forseeable consequence of that negligence (i.e. it was reasonable to suppose that it might happen, not that it would happen).

For the OP, the care DOES seem to have been reasonable. They could have avoided the accident by not riding the bike at all but cycling is a lawful activity.

They could possibly have avoided it by looking soley at where they wheels were - but would then not be looking where they were going risking an accident that WOULD be deemed the result of negligence.

GwylimT

You are not liable, just as a motorist is not liable for the stones their tyres throw up on journeys. If this was a liability issue, imagine how many claims would be made for chips caused by others on recently resurfaced roads.