Help regarding damage to car/store insurance

Smithcom

DullGreyGuy said:

Smithcom said:

ALIMHOLT said:

Hi all,

The other day my car was damaged in a well known grocery superstore car park by an 'obstruction' which wasn't visible from the inside of my vehicle. I know it sounds crazy! I don't really know how to describe the 'protrusion' but it definitely couldn't be described as a bollard as they're visible. I parked up without any problem however, on leaving the parking space the 'protusion' damaged the rear of my car. I drive a Fiat 500, so a small car with very little bonnet. The obstacle stuck in the ground is approx. less than 1 foot high and wasn't visible to me when driving the car out of the space. I'm quite miffed about it as this is the first time (luckily for me) I've had an accident. The damage is going to cost £400 to repair and the excess on my insurance is £375 so it doesn't seem worth making a claim through my insurance. Money is very tight at the moment so the last thing I need is a bill for £400. I'm wondering if it's possible to make a claim on the supermarkets insurance and, if so, how I proceed with this? Many thanks 🙂

Yes.  It's possible.

Love to see the case law of a driver hitting a static object in a carpark and it being the car park owners responsibility @smithcom

I think that we're a little light on information to form a conclusion at this stage.  And I did qualify my answer with 'You will have a lot of ground to cover, to establish liability against the supermarket'

I have got no idea, as I presume that you don't, if the static object is a raised kerb (which would seem legitimate to be there) or some sort of hidden danger which was likely to cause harm/damage.   

For example, where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair.

Ultimately, only a court can decide if liability exists, but I don't think we have sufficient information to know if potential liability exists under statute (i.e Occupiers Liability Act 1957) or common law.

Once we know what the motorist struck, we may be able to form a better opinion, but as it stands, I think I'll stick with, 'yes, it's possible' 

SC

DullGreyGuy

Smithcom said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Smithcom said:

ALIMHOLT said:

Hi all,

The other day my car was damaged in a well known grocery superstore car park by an 'obstruction' which wasn't visible from the inside of my vehicle. I know it sounds crazy! I don't really know how to describe the 'protrusion' but it definitely couldn't be described as a bollard as they're visible. I parked up without any problem however, on leaving the parking space the 'protusion' damaged the rear of my car. I drive a Fiat 500, so a small car with very little bonnet. The obstacle stuck in the ground is approx. less than 1 foot high and wasn't visible to me when driving the car out of the space. I'm quite miffed about it as this is the first time (luckily for me) I've had an accident. The damage is going to cost £400 to repair and the excess on my insurance is £375 so it doesn't seem worth making a claim through my insurance. Money is very tight at the moment so the last thing I need is a bill for £400. I'm wondering if it's possible to make a claim on the supermarkets insurance and, if so, how I proceed with this? Many thanks 🙂

Yes.  It's possible.

Love to see the case law of a driver hitting a static object in a carpark and it being the car park owners responsibility @smithcom

I think that we're a little light on information to form a conclusion at this stage.  And I did qualify my answer with 'You will have a lot of ground to cover, to establish liability against the supermarket'

I have got no idea, as I presume that you don't, if the static object is a raised kerb (which would seem legitimate to be there) or some sort of hidden danger which was likely to cause harm/damage.   

For example, where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair.

Ultimately, only a court can decide if liability exists, but I don't think we have sufficient information to know if potential liability exists under statute (i.e Occupiers Liability Act 1957) or common law.

Once we know what the motorist struck, we may be able to form a better opinion, but as it stands, I think I'll stick with, 'yes, it's possible' 

SC

When doing training on liability there was a case they gave of a council that left an upright lamppost 3' into the road. The driver that hit it was found 80% to blame as whilst it clearly shouldn't be there it was there to be seen and avoided and was only because it was the council that had done it who have a heightened duty of care did they get a 20% attribution of blame.

Smithcom

I think that we're a little light on information to form a conclusion at this stage.  And I did qualify my answer with 'You will have a lot of ground to cover, to establish liability against the supermarket'

I have got no idea, as I presume that you don't, if the static object is a raised kerb (which would seem legitimate to be there) or some sort of hidden danger which was likely to cause harm/damage.   

For example, where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair.

Ultimately, only a court can decide if liability exists, but I don't think we have sufficient information to know if potential liability exists under statute (i.e Occupiers Liability Act 1957) or common law.

Once we know what the motorist struck, we may be able to form a better opinion, but as it stands, I think I'll stick with, 'yes, it's possible' 

SC

When doing training on liability there was a case they gave of a council that left an upright lamppost 3' into the road. The driver that hit it was found 80% to blame as whilst it clearly shouldn't be there it was there to be seen and avoided and was only because it was the council that had done it who have a heightened duty of care did they get a 20% attribution of blame.

I don't disagree with you, although bear in mind that different statutes may apply to the highways, as opposed to private land.

I think that the OP's ability to make a successful claim against the supermarket is massively thin, as is reflected in my response to them.

The Occupier's Liability Act 1957 (of which I partially quoted in my above response to you), may give the OP some guidance.

I guess that much will depend on how hidden the 'danger' genuinely was.

I suspect, as I have stated before, that the OP will have much ground to cover to establish liability.   In the end, it's likely that they will not be able to establish liability.  

At this stage, I simply don't know, without seeing the full facts/photos.

SC

user1977

For the sake of a £400 claim, it hardly seems worthwhile trying to build such a case (especially if it ends up being "won" but with contributory negligence by the OP).

DullGreyGuy

user1977 said:

For the sake of a £400 claim, it hardly seems worthwhile trying to build such a case (especially if it ends up being "won" but with contributory negligence by the OP).

Agree with the sentiment but dont see how it would be contributory negligence (which is doing things like not wearing a seatbelt)? It would at absolute best be joint negligence (and more likely fully the OPs negligence) probably with just some token amount towards the supermarket.

On the flipside, commercially if a small claims court claim was issued for £400 the owner may decide its not worth fighting even if it has no merit.