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

geri1965_2

DELETED USER wrote:

Of course they are not automatically dangerous. Don't talk such utter, unadulterated nonsense. It is the fact that this accident took place that creates the liability, if that wasn't already completely obvious. Honestly, do I really need to state something so basic? You should refrain from commenting if this is your level of understanding, it isn't helpful.

Er, he is a solicitor so probably more qualified to take about legal liability than you are.

Of course if you do happen to be a barrister or judge, I take that back.

Lime2014

To those saying it's not the fault of the cyclist: what would happen if it was a driver who accidentally drove over a stone and smashed another's window ?

Is he not going to be liable ?

geri1965_2

Lime2014 wrote: »

To those saying it's not the fault of the cyclist: what would happen if it was a driver who accidentally drove over a stone and smashed another's window ?

Is he not going to be liable ?

No, unless the act of driving over a stone is negligent!

dacouch

Lime2014 wrote: »

To those saying it's not the fault of the cyclist: what would happen if it was a driver who accidentally drove over a stone and smashed another's window ?

Is he not going to be liable ?

There needs to be negligence even in motor accidents, for instance under certain circumstances the following accidents could mean you're not liable to third parties if you hit them following.

If you had a heart attack at the wheel with no previous medical problems and / or had been taking your medication

The hand brake failing and rolling into another car.

Skidding on black ice that was not obvious and hitting another car

Lime2014

dacouch wrote: »

There needs to be negligence even in motor accidents, for instance under certain circumstances the following accidents could mean you're not liable to third parties if you hit them following.

If you had a heart attack at the wheel with no previous medical problems and / or had been taking your medication

The hand brake failing and rolling into another car.

Skidding on black ice that was not obvious and hitting another car

So if I was involved in either of the above 2 situations, I wouldn't be held liable ? :question:

rach_k

How big was this stone?! I'm no expert but I would imagine it would either have to be a rather big stone (did it make you fall off your bike?) to smash a car window so easily, or perhaps the window was already weakened by another chip?

dacouch

Lime2014 wrote: »

So if I was involved in either of the above 2 situations, I wouldn't be held liable ? :question:

Yes it's possible, the law regards some incidents as unavoidable to a reasonable person and thus a pure accident with no one liable.

If you park up your car that has been properly maintained with no symptoms of hand brake problems and apply the hand brake. If the handbrake then fails it can be found that the driver of the car was not liable for the subsequent damage it does.

Here's an example of the black ice http://www.weightmans.com/library/newsletters/motor_claims_-_september_2013/although_a_passenger_may_be_%E2%80%9Ci.aspx

Crazy_Jamie

DELETED USER wrote:

Of course they are not automatically dangerous. Don't talk such utter, unadulterated nonsense. It is the fact that this accident took place that creates the liability, if that wasn't already completely obvious. Honestly, do I really need to state something so basic? You should refrain from commenting if this is your level of understanding, it isn't helpful.

We've now reached the point either where you don't understand what I'm saying, or you're confusing yourself. The fact that an accident has happened is not in itself indicative that someone is liable for that accident. Res ipsa loquitur was once in common use in tort cases, but it's rarely seen nowadays, mainly because judges aren't particularly keen on it. So I will repeat; your assertion that the car park owner is clearly liable (or words to that effect) is wrong. I have previously explained why that is with reference to the relevant legislation and legal principles. You can continue with the personal remarks if you wish, but the reality is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the law is here, a state of affairs that is unlikely to change unless you actually allow yourself to listen to those that do know what they are talking about.

geri1965 wrote:

Er, he is a solicitor so probably more qualified to take about legal liability than you are.

Of course if you do happen to be a barrister or judge, I take that back.

You're very kind, Geri, but I'm not a solicitor. I've never actually confirmed on this site what my job is, mainly because I prefer to let my posts do the talking rather than my job title. Though I do note with interest the implication that a barrister may be more qualified to comment on these sorts of things than a solicitor. I'm not sure many solicitors would be happy with that sort of hierarchy, but there we go.

huckster

I usually find that when people resort to being rude that they are on the wrong side of an argument. So many posts about an event where no liability is likely to proved against anyone.

dacouch

huckster wrote: »

I usually find that when people resort to being rude that they are on the wrong side of an argument. So many posts about an event where no liability is likely to proved against anyone.

It always seems to be the urban myths that they get so aggressive about eg driving other cars, the requirement for negligence for their to be a liability etc etc