Car accident - unlit supermarket carpark

JennieJen_2

To what extent is lighting in a local supermarket car park required? The company have advised that by law they think they do not have to provide lighting in their car park - but if they do provide it do they have to maintain it?

A dark car was parked underneath two (not working) spotlights on a dark winters (rainy) evening when it was hit in a reverse collision. Driver waited for third party and details were exchanged. Photograph taken of positioning and (lack of) lighting and visibility.

Is there anyone who can corroborate the legality of the below article: traffic accident advice your-rights-as-a-driver-if-you-hit-a-stationary-object ?? (to view google the above as this site will not allow a new user to post links!) As this suggests some fault may be attributable to the driver who parked in the unlit 1/4 of the car park when there were spaces available in the lit areas of car park.

Any constructive advice / legal knowledge welcomed.

Browntoa

private land , not sure there is ANY requirement to provide lighting

JennieJen_2

Browntoa wrote: »

private land , not sure there is ANY requirement to provide lighting

Thanks - but then private land doesn't hold up in insurance when private parking open to public use - so does the same have any relevance to lighting I wonder? Any ideas?

notanewuser

If you hit a stationary object it cannot be the stationary object's fault!

Captaincodpiece

Liability falls with the driver who hit the stationary object. If lighting and visibility was that bad should they have been attempting the manoeuvre?

InsideInsurance

JennieJen wrote: »

Thanks - but then private land doesn't hold up in insurance when private parking open to public use - so does the same have any relevance to lighting I wonder? Any ideas?

Private land makes no difference to insurance, its an urban myth that it does. The only time it would is if you had RTO cover which almost totally unheard of and cannot remember ever seeing anyone actually having it - dont even know if anyone sells it as a standard product though inevitably a Lloyds Syndicate could do it on request.

There is no obligation for lighting in carparks nor any requirement for lighting to be working.

There is one fairly infamous case that is often used in liability training. Its been a good few years since I last covered it so apologies if the numbers are not exactly correct.....

A council wanted a road widened by cutting back the pavement. They contracted the work out which included removing and resiting 5 lamp posts. Unfortunately there were actually 6 lamppost on the stretch of pavement being cut back and being jobs worths the contractors left the 6th lamppost in its original position so after the pavement was cut back it was now 2' into the road.

The claimant was driving along the road in glaring sunlight and didnt see the lamppost and hit it. They sued the council for having a lamppost 2' into the middle of the road. The judge settled the case 80/20 against the driver because the council does have a heightened duty of care and clearly a lamppost shouldnt be 2' into the road. However the driver ultimately should have seen it and avoided it if they were driving appropriately for the condition hence they were 80% to blame for it.

A supermarket doesnt have an enhanced duty of care, you hit a parked car that was there to be seen and avoided and so would be 100% liable.

OnanTheBarbarian

Private land, even land that isn't open to the public is no longer an excuse or exclusion insurers can rely upon due to a European Court of Justice ruling on 8th Sept 2014 in a case of Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d. ECJ, Case C 162/13, the German Government and Ireland submitted that the insurance obligation provided for in Article 3(1) of the First Directive relates only to situations involving road use and that it does not therefore apply to circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings – a tractor running someone down in a farm yard. By contrast, the Commission was of the opinion that the provision applies to the use of vehicles, whether as a means of transport or as machines, in any area, both public and private, in which risks inherent in the use of vehicles may arise, whether those vehicles are moving or not. The ECJ decided was that any accident had to be covered by insurance where ever it arose in a member’s territory.

The same rule will apply to any motor vehicle whether or not it is designed or adapted for road use.

However, the absence of lighting being the cause of someone hitting another parked vehicle is not going to wash as a basis for any liability.

wiogs

JennieJen wrote: »

To what extent is lighting in a local supermarket car park required? The company have advised that by law they think they do not have to provide lighting in their car park - but if they do provide it do they have to maintain it?

A dark car was parked underneath two (not working) spotlights on a dark winters (rainy) evening when it was hit in a reverse collision. Driver waited for third party and details were exchanged. Photograph taken of positioning and (lack of) lighting and visibility.

Is there anyone who can corroborate the legality of the below article: traffic accident advice your-rights-as-a-driver-if-you-hit-a-stationary-object ?? (to view google the above as this site will not allow a new user to post links!) As this suggests some fault may be attributable to the driver who parked in the unlit 1/4 of the car park when there were spaces available in the lit areas of car park.

Any constructive advice / legal knowledge welcomed.

That is brilliant.

Love to see that used as a defence in a court, I am sure they could all do with a laugh.

Errata

If you can't see where you're going, don't drive there.

molerat

Many years ago I reversed into a tree in an unlit car park, one person was at fault - me ! If you can not clearly see what is in your path do not carry out the manoeuvre ......... it could have been a nun or a child or a puppy or even a nun holding a child's hand carrying a basket full of puppies.

wiogs

molerat wrote: »

Many years ago I reversed into a tree in an unlit car park, one person was at fault - me ! If you can not clearly see what is in your path do not carry out the manoeuvre ......... it could have been a nun or a child or a puppy or even a nun holding a child's hand carrying a basket full of puppies.

Thank goodness someone is thinking of the children.