Collision with a Bollard - Legal action or repair cost covered?

AdamPL

Thanks for your replies. Although I understand the point you're making about the duty of care when driving and hitting a stationary object, the bollard in question was obstructing the way of entry to the premises for no given reason at the time. On top of that, the way of entry to the premises gives limited visibility therefore, as a business who operates bollards for safety reasons, it's also their duty of care to minimize the risks to the public by ensuring that visitors are aware of the hazards on sites if there are any present. This would fall under the Health & Safety at work act 1974 (Same as displaying a ''wet floor'' sign where there is a wet floor).

Failing to do so and putting a member of public or their property at risk can be potential liability towards the business. Hence why business should operate with a public liability insurance. Again, why would one out of bollards be left up at the ONLY entrance and two others left pulled down during their opening hours? Why would they want to limit access when they want customers coming in. If that equipment is malfunctioning, it would be standard practice for them to minimize the risks by making public aware.

In relation to the colleague that works there, we do not wish to put him in the line of fire however with the evidence and information he presents, this can create a case for their negligence as failure to comply with Health & Safety Standards at work (potentially) by not adhering to Risk Assessment standards, meaning minimizing the hazards on premises to the best effect for staff and public.

If you were driving up through an entry of a business when its open, would you expect bollards to be up upon entering?

I have taken images to show the way of entry to their premises and bollards position.

ibb.co/dHxKYc
ibb.co/nzLv6x
ibb.co/dsLTRx
ibb.co/bEMreH
ibb.co/eUxEzH

AdrianC

AdamPL wrote: »

Although I understand the point you're making about the duty of care when driving and hitting a stationary object

There's a "but" coming, isn't there?

the bollard in question was obstructing the way of entry to the premises

All the more reason not to drive into it, no?

for no given reason at the time.

Why's one needed?

On top of that, the way of entry to the premises gives limited visibility

She could not see the way was clear. All the more reason to take care.

therefore, as a business who operates bollards for safety reasons, it's also their duty of care to minimize the risks to the public by ensuring that visitors are aware of the hazards on sites if there are any present. This would fall under the Health & Safety at work act 1974 (Same as displaying a ''wet floor'' sign where there is a wet floor).

A bollard is plainly visible, while a wet floor is not.

Again, why would one out of bollards be left up at the ONLY entrance and two others left pulled down during their opening hours? Why would they want to limit access when they want customers coming in. If that equipment is malfunctioning, it would be standard practice for them to minimize the risks.

If they'd all been up, would she have driven in anyway, in the expectation they were all down?

If you were driving up through an entry of a business when its open, would you expect bollards to be up upon entering?

I'd be looking for hazards, of whatever kind. Perhaps it was a sack of anvils that had fallen off the previous vehicle in. Perhaps it was a nun having a sit-down because the basket of kittens she was carrying was heavy.

I have taken images to show the way of entry to their premises and bollards position.

Sorry, can we just clarify one sec...? You seriously think those help to prove your case that Mumsy couldn't possibly have seen or avoided that bollard...?

verityboo

http://ibb.co/bEMreH

Sorry but i don!!!8217;t see it as limited visibility. The bright blue bollard couldn!!!8217;t be more obvious to me. Looks like there is plenty of room to drive around it too.

Tigsteroonie

JP1978 wrote: »

Wonder if OP (or the OP's Mother) has now gone to Mumsnet for sympathy?

Nope, not yet

hollie.weimeraner

Someone shouldn't be driving if they haven't seen that!:rotfl:

Aylesbury_Duck

AdamPL wrote: »

Thanks for your replies. Although I understand the point you're making about the duty of care when driving and hitting a stationary object, the bollard in question was obstructing the way of entry to the premises for no given reason at the time. On top of that, the way of entry to the premises gives limited visibility therefore, as a business who operates bollards for safety reasons, it's also their duty of care to minimize the risks to the public by ensuring that visitors are aware of the hazards on sites if there are any present. This would fall under the Health & Safety at work act 1974 (Same as displaying a ''wet floor'' sign where there is a wet floor).

Failing to do so and putting a member of public or their property at risk can be potential liability towards the business. Hence why business should operate with a public liability insurance. Again, why would one out of bollards be left up at the ONLY entrance and two others left pulled down during their opening hours? Why would they want to limit access when they want customers coming in. If that equipment is malfunctioning, it would be standard practice for them to minimize the risks by making public aware.

In relation to the colleague that works there, we do not wish to put him in the line of fire however with the evidence and information he presents, this can create a case for their negligence as failure to comply with Health & Safety Standards at work (potentially) by not adhering to Risk Assessment standards, meaning minimizing the hazards on premises to the best effect for staff and public.

If you were driving up through an entry of a business when its open, would you expect bollards to be up upon entering?

I have taken images to show the way of entry to their premises and bollards position.

ibb.co/dHxKYc
ibb.co/nzLv6x
ibb.co/dsLTRx
ibb.co/bEMreH
ibb.co/eUxEzH

You seem very sure of your case and the weakness of the dealership's case with respect to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, so ignore all the advice on here and make a claim.


Don't include the photos though...the bollard doesn't come across as quite so invisible as I'm sure it is in real life.

P.S. Since you are a stickler for signage, the dealership may counter your claim by pointing out that the entrance in question is for Peugeot cars. It says so in bright yellow lettering on the ground. Why was your mother trying to drive a Vauxhall through that entrance? Sounds like contributory negligence to me.

neilmcl

Just for clarification, it's the Evans Halshaw dealer in Blackpool (FY3 9TN if you want to check on google maps).

Whilst I can see that the bollard wouldn't be visible from the beginning of the approach/entrance road there's no way you should miss that when you start to turn in, not unless you were coming in at a fair lick without concentrating. At the end of the day whenever you enter/egress a premises you have to take care to look for potential hazards, something your mum clearly failed to do.

Nasqueron

Does your mum drive around blind corners on country roads at high speed, hit sheep and then try and sue the farmer too?

If there is limited visibility to an approach, you slow down. That's pretty much the basic standard of driving (the highway code even tells you to only drive at a speed which will allow you to stop in the distance visible!)

kev25v6

How many people managed to get in the car park that day without hitting the bollard?

Silvertabby

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

Someone shouldn't be driving if they haven't seen that!:rotfl:

She's lucky it was just a bollard and not a child.