New Ford Fiesta no wheels

Sterlingtimes

lammy82 wrote: »

No, manufacturers are not legally required to provide spare parts for their vehicles. You are right that scarcity of parts does not give a good impression for prospective buyers, but this is not a legal matter.

Thank you for your response. This is pretty much what we surmised. At last, a new wheel has turned up.

Sterlingtimes

agrinnall wrote: »

I am going to "get trigger happy" on you as I think in most cases a slide on ice is unlikely to be due to to negligence (lack of skill, yes, not having winter tyres, possibly, but that's not negligent).

Thank you. I am the original poster. My son and I are quite resigned to this being negligence in the law of tort. We might apply an objective test by asking the question: would an average reasonable driver scid on ice and hit a concrete post? The answer is probably yes, because even professional drivers such as the police or ambulance drivers have probably encountered the same end position. Yet, someone has got to be responsible for the damage and more than likely the driver will be found to have been negligent.

Sterlingtimes

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The law may have a different view.
https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/clients/defender-successful-with-a-black-ice-defence

Very interesting. Thank you. This is a difficult one and leaves the claimant potentially out of pocket at least to the extent of his/her insurance excess and increased insurance premium. It's almost as though the person skidding on the ice is strictly liable irrespective of negligence been proven.

agrinnall

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

Thank you. I am the original poster. My son and I are quite resigned to this being negligence in the law of tort. We might apply an objective test by asking the question: would an average reasonable driver scid on ice and hit a concrete post? The answer is probably yes, because even professional drivers such as the police or ambulance drivers have probably encountered the same end position. Yet, someone has got to be responsible for the damage and more than likely the driver will be found to have been negligent.

Has your son claimed on his insurance for the replacement wheel? In that case the insurer will consider him to be liable (basically because nobody else is) but I don't think negligence will come into it.

Sterlingtimes

agrinnall wrote: »

Has your son claimed on his insurance for the replacement wheel? In that case the insurer will consider him to be liable (basically because nobody else is) but I don't think negligence will come into it.

Yes, he did claim. The insurance company just uses the terms "fault claim". They are not looking to address neglience. It's his fault because no one else is at fault.

takman

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

Thank you. I am the original poster. My son and I are quite resigned to this being negligence in the law of tort. We might apply an objective test by asking the question: would an average reasonable driver scid on ice and hit a concrete post? The answer is probably yes, because even professional drivers such as the police or ambulance drivers have probably encountered the same end position. Yet, someone has got to be responsible for the damage and more than likely the driver will be found to have been negligent.

So if it wasn't possible to avoid skidding on the ice then everyone who drove that road around that time must have also crashed. If they didn't then driving appropriately for the conditions would have prevented the crash from happening.