Falling street Christmas lights hit car

unforeseen

Doesn't prove negligence. Any number of factors external to the lights could be at play in that particular location - we will never know.

You are right. OP sought opinion and he has the choice of getting his car fixed now or dragging it all out through small claims with the added hassle that that invves.

uk1

unforeseen wrote: »

Why would the council answer no to

The answer would be yes and they would claim that all lights were fixed the same way but only one fell down therefore it can not be considered negligence.

In which case claimant would need to provide some evidence to counteract their assertion.

unforeseen wrote: »

Doesn't prove negligence. Any number of factors external to the lights could be at play in that particular location - we will never know.

You are right. OP sought opinion and he has the choice of getting his car fixed now or dragging it all out through small claims with the added hassle that that invves.

If your earlier logic were correct then if you were driving around the street and a council driver smacked you in the rear, then the council could simply say that they had 99 other drivers on the road that didn't smack any cars in the rear and that would using your logic prove that the driver of the car that rear-ended you wasn't negligent. That would clearly be an unsustainable defence.

The OP did not ask whether it was preferable for his friend to make a claim but whether there was any other option that avoided losing his NCB. I attempted to help witrh the question they asked rather than offer opinions about a question that wasn't asked.

uk1

Mr.Everready wrote: »

My friends car was hit by some falling Christmas lights that were put up on a lamp post. This has caused about £1000 worth of damage but the council are denying responsibility because it was "stormy" !


He hasn't contacted his own insurance as yet because he doesn't want to lose his NCB or pay out the excess.



What's his best course of action ?

I suggest that your friend firstly checks to see whether he has legal insurance as an add-on to his motor or house insurance and if so - ask for help.

If not I suggest your friend writes a short letter to the council explaining that he doesn't agree with their conclusion and that they were negligent in not fixing the lights so that they wouldn't fall off during a storm and stating that he is giving them 14 days to reconsider their position after which a claim will be lodged. There is a reasonable chance that once the request is forwarded to the council's legal department it might be settled. If it isn't he can then decide what he wishes to do.

Rosemary7391

Surely the fact that the light fell isn't sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the council? Who knows what happened to it since it got put up, or if there was a slight defect in the fixings, or...

unforeseen

uk1 wrote: »

If your earlier logic were correct then if you were driving around the street and a council driver smacked you in the rear, then the council could simply say that they had 99 other drivers on the road that didn't smack any cars in the rear and that would using your logic prove that the driver of the car that rear-ended you wasn't negligent. That would clearly be an unsustainable defence.

You really picked the worst example to try to poo poo my comments.

It is accepted in law (and insurance) that contrary to any other provable factor, in the case of a rear end shunt the DRIVER of the vehicle that ran into you is at fault.

The council will pick up the tab as the driver was their employee, driving their vehicle. The council may bill their employee later for their losses but that is an internal matter

uk1

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Surely the fact that the light fell isn't sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the council? Who knows what happened to it since it got put up, or if there was a slight defect in the fixings, or...

We are going around in circles.

The council has a presumed obligation to take "reasonable care" in fixing the lights. The claimant asserts that the council was negligent in that they fixed lights that subsequently blew off during a storm something that should not have normally happened. Storms routinely happens and lights do not routinely fall off. The council then would need to prove that they were not negligent because they had taken steps that would have stopped the lights falling off under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. A storm is a reasonable foreseeable circumstance it happens every year at this time of year.

In civil issues unlike criminal issues a case has to be proven to a lower bar. You only have to show that on the "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" that the council was obligated to take "reasonable care" to fix the lights so that they didn't fall off during a severe storm and failed to do so - and you are likely to win your argument. It would then be for the council to defend themselves by showing that wholly exceptional and reasonably unforeeable circumstances that they couldn't have reasonably predicted caused the failure rather than the council.

uk1

unforeseen wrote: »

You really picked the worst example to try to poo poo my comments.

It is accepted in law (and insurance) that contrary to any other provable factor, in the case of a rear end shunt the DRIVER of the vehicle that ran into you is at fault.

The council will pick up the tab as the driver was their employee, driving their vehicle. The council may bill their employee later for their losses but that is an internal matter

And the council has a presumed obligation to ensure that the lights should stay up in a storm and in this situation the council employees fixing up the lights were negligent in not fixing them so that they didn't.

unforeseen

uk1 wrote: »

And the council has a presumed obligation to ensure that the lights should stay up in a storm and in this situation the council employees fixing up the lights were negligent in not fixing them so that they didn't.

In which case your neighbour would have a claim off you if one of your roof tiles came off in a storm and damaged their car. Reality is that it is considered act of god/weather and he has no claim against you.

uk1

unforeseen wrote: »

In which case your neighbour would have a claim off you if one of your roof tiles came off in a storm and damaged their car. Reality is that it is considered act of god/weather and he has no claim against you.

In an earlier post you concluded that an example I offered wasn't the same and now you are doing exactly the same.

Let's leave it at that.

unforeseen

My example is very similar to the ops problem yours bore no resemblance