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

Crazy_Jamie

huckster wrote: »

I usually find that when people resort to being rude that they are on the wrong side of an argument.

Either that or it's just a common feature of arguments that take place on the internet

rs65

The wisdom of the internet.

Something answered in post #4 get to 4 pages including arguments about what a windscreen is (it would've been answered by the first reply if Mojo hadn't answered first).

magpiecottage

I think, with the exception of ska lover, the consensus is that the OP is not liable. Even mojo thinks it is the car park owner (whose insurers will tell the car owner otherwise).

The OP should politely tell the owner they are not liable and if the owner tries to argue that they are because they apologised point refer to section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006.

NVRAM

How's this panning out OP?

[Deleted User]

huckster wrote: »

I usually find that when people resort to being rude that they are on the wrong side of an argument.

Very true, but if you look back through Jamie's posting history you can see how he reacts like that whenever anyone dares disagree with him, and then follows it up with some "look how reasonable I'm being" stuff.

hmdiow1985

No you are not liable this will come under a windscreen claim, will go non fault against the car owner, and will more than likely be repaired with a repair excess from the car owner of roughly £10.

rs65

hmdiow1985 wrote: »

No you are not liable this will come under a windscreen claim, will go non fault against the car owner, and will more than likely be repaired with a repair excess from the car owner of roughly £10.

The window 'completely smashed'. How will they repair it?

adouglasmhor

DELETED USER wrote:

Very true, but if you look back through Jamie's posting history you can see how he reacts like that whenever anyone dares disagree with him, and then follows it up with some "look how reasonable I'm being" stuff.

Sounds like you are describing me too. I know it's a fault but sometimes ego overtakes common sense in my case.

Crazy_Jamie

DELETED USER wrote:

Very true, but if you look back through Jamie's posting history you can see how he reacts like that whenever anyone dares disagree with him, and then follows it up with some "look how reasonable I'm being" stuff.

I have no issue at all with people disagreeing with me per se; I am perfectly willing to acknowledge and respect an alternative viewpoint. On occasion I'm even willing to change my view and acknowledge error on my part, something which I think I may have done reasonably recently on here, though given that you've recently reviewed my post history you'd probably be in a better position to confirm that.


However, when it comes to this forum it should be noted that personal injury litigation is a specialist area of law, and in that vein confidently portraying viewpoints and opinions that are erroneous is potentially damaging for those that are genuinely looking for advice in what are often situations where doing the wrong thing can have serious repercussions. It is for that reason that I can be direct when addressing such situations. If you want to maintain that that should be held against me in some way you can feel free to do so, but if you expect me to actually change my approach you are going to be sorely disappointed.