Civil claim after accident

Gavin83

1940sGal wrote: »

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.

How did the phone conversation go?

rudekid48 wrote: »

I wonder if you would be as forgiving if it was the other way around?

While I expect most people to side with their relative based on whats been said (I realise there are two sides) I'd say the woman is at fault. However I fully expect the insurance company to pay out and I expect she has since picked up a serious injury and is too traumatised to leave the house.

1940sGal

Gavin83 wrote: »

How did the phone conversation go?

Dad said they just asked for his insurance details and made their intentions clear.

Though he also said they were on facebook calling for witnesses and had posted to a motorcycle group in Dad's town. A member of said motorcycle group had posted something along the lines of 'let's get the word out and find this idiot' but Dad has a friend in the same group and, after telling his friend, things went quiet from the group. It sounded very much like the family of this woman are trying to start a bit of a witch hunt.

I doubt very much that the woman has started any of this and her family are seeing £££'s. But at the same time she is to blame and, while I likely wouldn't be reprimanding her if she were my Nan, I wouldn't be calling on her to make a claim either.

It just makes me so angry because I drive and you see pedestrians all the time stepping out in front of cars. At no point should the motorist be held to account through the idiocy of people who would rather risk their lives than wait a few seconds/minutes.

InsideInsurance

1940sGal wrote: »

At no point should the motorist be held to account through the idiocy of people who would rather risk their lives than wait a few seconds/minutes.

Given the ability to cause damage by a car/truck/motorbike -v- a pedestrian the greater duty of care will always be with the motorist.

1940sGal

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Given the ability to cause damage by a car/truck/motorbike -v- a pedestrian the greater duty of care will always be with the motorist.

I agree to a point. As a cyclist I know who's going to end up worse off between me and a car but at the same time I do all in my power to ensure my own safety and that should go for pedestrians, too.

The woman in this case could and should have waited. I just don't understand people who should know better, are perfectly aware of the risks, but who are happy to take that risk rather than just wait.

Retrogamer

It reminds me of this a little bit.

https://youtu.be/FydJucnb2Rk?t=12s

1940sGal

Retrogamer wrote: »

It reminds me of this a little bit.

https://youtu.be/FydJucnb2Rk?t=12s

That's crazy. A, He looked like he was going a bit fast to say he was filtering and b, she didn't even look. She's probably thinking that traffic has stopped so she can pop through but still, that's not to say she shouldn't have checked first.

dacouch

EdGasket wrote: »

Not for motor-related claims though I think you'll find.

The pedestrian is not a motor vehicle so if they have Home Insurance it will normally include personal liability cover which is what RS was referring to

OnanTheBarbarian

Retrogamer wrote: »

It reminds me of this a little bit.

https://youtu.be/FydJucnb2Rk?t=12s

I was thinking exactly the same. I travel along that section of road in York every day.

The old dear didn't look at all, ironic there is a pedestrian crossing about 50 yds further down the road too. But when you look back at the footage, you also see her moving from the pavement in between the cars in the right hand lane. The biker was filtering too quickly and would cop for a degree of blame in a civil claim.

somethingcorporate

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

I was thinking exactly the same. I travel along that section of road in York every day.

The old dear didn't look at all, ironic there is a pedestrian crossing about 50 yds further down the road too. But when you look back at the footage, you also see her moving from the pavement in between the cars in the right hand lane. The biker was filtering too quickly and would cop for a degree of blame in a civil claim.

That video does divide opinion. I really cannot see how the motorcyclist is to blame. She ran out between two cars in a row of static traffic.

I regularly drive that road too and am baffled by her not using the crossing just 30 seconds walk away!

ChumLee

1940sGal wrote: »

That's crazy. A, He looked like he was going a bit fast to say he was filtering and b, she didn't even look. She's probably thinking that traffic has stopped so she can pop through but still, that's not to say she shouldn't have checked first.

C. He should have seen it coming.