Child hit by car compensation claim

recci

My 11 year old son was hit by a car yesterday. He was knocked up in the air and hit the ground hard. Luckily he was not seriously injured but suffered a minor fracture to his arm and a massive lump to his head plus lots of other scrapes and bruises. He ran out onto the road from behind a car but it was at a crossing point where the road narrows to let people cross. My child got up from this and ran into the house screaming.

The female driver phoned the police herself while i took him to A&E. There were no other witnesses as a part from him and her.

He was obviously partly to blame here but people are telling me he may still be able to claim compensation as she should have been more careful at that part of the road.

Do you think this is correct?

Should I go for one these no win no fee options?

Mojisola

recci wrote: »

My 11 year old son was hit by a car yesterday.

Luckily he was not seriously injured but suffered a minor fracture to his arm and a massive lump to his head plus lots of other scrapes and bruises.

He ran out onto the road from behind a car but it was at a crossing point where the road narrows to let people cross.

He was obviously partly to blame here but people are telling me he may still be able to claim compensation as she should have been more careful at that part of the road.

As your son's injuries are relatively minor, you should be thanking the woman for being a careful driver. If she had been doing 30, your son's injuries would have much more serious.

EmmyLou30

How about just being grateful he's ok, accept he was as much to blame as her and move on with your life without trying to rinse money out of an insurance company. We all pay for this on our car insurance in the end. Sorry if that sounds harsh but this compensation culture thing we've adopted from the USA needs to stop.

recci

I grateful he's ok and I partly agree with this. But she didn't seem all that bothered about it and there was no way to tell how fast she was going.

Also if he is actually entitled to compensation I don't see anything wrong with trying to secure some money for his future.

If he is not truly entitled to anything then I will not push the issue. I am basically just try to find out if he is entitled.

mamabuddah

recci wrote: »

I grateful he's ok and I partly agree with this. But she didn't seem all that bothered about it and there was no way to tell how fast she was going.

Also if he is actually entitled to compensation I don't see anything wrong with trying to secure some money for his future.

If he is not truly entitled to anything then I will not push the issue. I am basically just try to find out if he is entitled.

By the same principle, I wonder can she claim off you for damage to her car, stress of being involved in a RTA which wasn’t her fault and subsequent time she may need off work...the 50/50 rule I can’t see applying when someone runs into the road in front of a Car...

So anyone care to comment

vacheron

My Mum (now 70) did a similar thing about 12 years ago when a girl ran in front of her car from between parked cars without warning, the girl was also looking in the totally opposite direction to the traffic as she ran out.

She hit the brakes the second she saw her, but there was nothing she could do to avoid her. The girl also escaped with minor injuries. This was the first accident my mum had had in 30+ years of driving.

My mum very upset and plagued with guilt and nightmares over this for weeks, even though everyone (even the police who attended) said she did nothing wrong.
She still mentions it when she drives past that spot and has never had an accident since.

As I have witnessed the psychological "injury" which can be caused to the other party I am looking at this from the other side of the fence.

For this reason my thoughts after reading your post are also with the driver who may have done everything they could to avoid worse injury yet then gets slapped with a compensation claim as if they are the one to blame.

I know I am playing devils advocate here, and so I feel for your son, but compensation for what? What financial losses, hardship or costs have been incurred by an 11 year old getting a bump on the head and a fractured arm? If anything he has been taught a valuable lesson at a relatively minor physical cost.
Had he not received this sharp reminder about the dangers of live traffic his next encounter may not have been nearly as lucky.

recci

As I say I basically agree. However I am led to believe that as child he is considered to be a vulnerable and non responsible person and there is virtually no way she could claim anything from us.

My understanding of it is that she would not be personally liable its her motor insurance that would have to pay in any event.

vacheron

recci wrote: »

As I say I basically agree. However I am led to believe that as child he is considered to be a vulnerable and non responsible person and there is virtually no way she could claim anything from us.

My understanding of it is that she would not be personally liable its her motor insurance that would have to pay in any event.

I have to ask, if he is "vulnerable" and "non-responsible", what was he doing in live traffic unsupervised?

And of course she will be personally liable. In addition to any psychological trauma She will have to pay for the costs and time of dealing with your claim. She will have to pay higher premiums for years to come because she will lose her no claims and have to pay the policy excess which could normally be anything between £250-£750, but possibly even higher. This is in addition to any possible damage to her vehicle which might have been caused.

recci

vacheron wrote: »

I have to ask, if he is "vulnerable" and "non-responsible", what was he doing in live traffic unsupervised?

He was out playing with his pals. Read what i said under the eyes of the law any child is considered "vulnerable" and "non-responsible" in this kind of situation. I dont make the law.

easy

Oh that word "entitled".
I don't believe he is entitled to anything relating to this accident, and I don't think that you should even be thinking this way.

I do believe that he is entitled to receive proper instruction on how to cross the road safely (how has he got to 11 years old without knowing this?).
I also believe the driver is entitled to some credit from you for ringing the police herself. When you say "she didn't seem all that bothered about it" I bet she was pretty shocked about it. Would you have been happier if she had wept and wailed about how sorry she was. As your son's injuries are relatively minor she must have been going pretty steadily.

What exactly do you think your boy should be entitled to? Would a sum of money make his broken arm hurt less?

Stop seeing £ signs, give him a hug and thank whichever version of God you choose that your lad is still alive, then learn from the experience and teach any other children you have or have contact with how to cross the road safely.

vacheron

recci wrote: »

He was out playing with his pals. Read what i said under the eyes of the law any child is considered "vulnerable" and "non-responsible" in this kind of situation. I dont make the law.

I appreciate what you say, however the responsibility for this "vulnerable" and "non-responsible" person lies far more with you as his parent to protect him rather than relying on the quick reflexes of whichever random motorist he happens to run out in front of.

I think that those terms may more likely be in place to protect your son from being personally prosecuted by the driver than to allow his family to use "No win no fee" solicitors with total impunity.