Civil claim after accident

1940sGal

Not sure if this is the right place for this but it's the closest I could find.

I was speaking to my Dad today and he was giving me an update on an accident he was involved in a few weeks back.

He rides a motorbike and was travelling along a 30mph road when up ahead he saw a woman stood waiting to cross the road. She was elderly, he said (not sure how elderly), and as he was approaching she decided she had enough time to cross and 'made a run for it', or rather she did that little run that older people do. Dad said she looked and saw him, it was daylight, he had his headlight on and on top of that, he rides a Harley so not a quiet bike.

He braked and was practically at a stop when he hit her. She ended with an injury to her arm (though not serious) and dad ended up falling off his bike and hurt his side/knee. The bike was damaged a bit and the cost is around the £200 mark.

The police attended but told dad that they were happy he wasn't at fault. There were no skid marks on the road and he wasn't speeding. As far as they're concerned, the matter is closed.

This woman's family however, aren't happy. The police, without Dad's consent, gave them his phone number and they called him wanting his insurance so they could file a civil claim.

They have now done that. My question is, based on the fact that the police have said they're happy that it was the woman's fault and she shouldn't have stepped out on him, are they likely to get far with this claim? Dad's a professional driver, could it have a bearing on his employment?

Mercdriver

It won't have a bearing on his employment as the police are of the opinion that he wasn't driving carelessly. If they stated that the lady was at fault, then this stands on your side, though the weight of proof is lower than for a criminal case. They only need a balance of probability. It's also down to how willing your insurance company is to stand up to the claim.

Retrogamer

Did your father inform his insurance of the accident at the time? If not, they might not be as helpful as you'd like.

It all comes down to who ever was negligent. In this case it sounds like the person crossing the road was negligent as they never waited for the road to be clear before doing so.
However, sometimes insurance companies will just pay out for these cases as it costs more to drag it through the court trying to defend it when it's not guaranteed they will win.

I.e if she claims she was on the road and your father had ample time to stop, he may be found negligent.

Marktheshark

It falls under the third party element of the insurance, they have a duty to pay the injury.
He should have fully reported it to his insurance anyway so pass the insurers details on.
If he didn't he is is real trouble with the insurance company and his policy may be cancelled.

Car_54

As an injury was involved, your father was obliged by law to provide his insurance details.

I'd suggest therefore that he should contact his insurers ASAP with his version of events.

facade

He should be able to persue a claim against the woman for his injuries, and the damage to the 'bike too.

Ectophile

Marktheshark wrote: »

It falls under the third party element of the insurance, they have a duty to pay the injury.
He should have fully reported it to his insurance anyway so pass the insurers details on.
If he didn't he is is real trouble with the insurance company and his policy may be cancelled.

They only have a duty to pay if it was the driver's fault.

ChumLee

Marktheshark wrote: »

It falls under the third party element of the insurance, they have a duty to pay the injury.
He should have fully reported it to his insurance anyway so pass the insurers details on.
If he didn't he is is real trouble with the insurance company and his policy may be cancelled.

Do you get off on scaremongering?

owlet

facade wrote: »

He should be able to persue a claim against the woman for his injuries, and the damage to the 'bike too.

Might be lucky - I was involved in an incident with a pedestrian (I was driving my car). Woman crossed two lanes of stationary traffic (headed out of town) into the third lane heading in opposite direction & in which I was driving.

She smacked into the front wing of my car, big dent & broke wing mirror. Stupid woman was carrying a baby too. Total madness - there was a crossing 20 yards away. Anyway.... police came & breathalysed me & took a statement. Plenty of witnesses & it was impossible that I could have been at fault anyway. Police said I wasn't to blame.

Claimed through our insurance, cost £300 excess & car was repaired. Insurance company flatly refused to pursue the woman to claim our losses back. They said she probably wasn't insured & it wasn't worth it. They wouldn't let us claim using a third party under our legal cover either.

Hope you have better luck.

Mercdriver

The risk of taking on someone without insurance who might not be able to afford to pay a high claim plus costs is what stops the insurance companies from pursuing pedestrians and cyclists (though some cyclists do have insurance - I did when I was cycling)

Retrogamer

owlet wrote: »

Might be lucky - I was involved in an incident with a pedestrian (I was driving my car). Woman crossed two lanes of stationary traffic (headed out of town) into the third lane heading in opposite direction & in which I was driving.

She smacked into the front wing of my car, big dent & broke wing mirror. Stupid woman was carrying a baby too. Total madness - there was a crossing 20 yards away. Anyway.... police came & breathalysed me & took a statement. Plenty of witnesses & it was impossible that I could have been at fault anyway. Police said I wasn't to blame.

Claimed through our insurance, cost £300 excess & car was repaired. Insurance company flatly refused to pursue the woman to claim our losses back. They said she probably wasn't insured & it wasn't worth it. They wouldn't let us claim using a third party under our legal cover either.

Hope you have better luck.

The insurance company are likely to have came to that decision due to the negative PR that would ensue if they did.

Can you imagine newspapers or blogs "X insurance company harasses young mother for money after their customer ran her and her baby over"

It's happened before.