son hit by a cyclist. Can i claim for him?

kammyk

Why would the cyclist claim, if he did not think that he had any evidence to do so?

He broke your sons leg and has the cheek to claim on your house insurance?! I find that very strange, He must have a good reason to do so, otherwise I think a majority of people would have just counted their losses and forgo about it.

anewman

PasturesNew wrote: »

Maybe the roads were dry, the light good, no lights required.

But we have to ask. Anything that we can get the OP's son to remember about the situation, that is truthful, may help the case. That it was about the same time a year ago, and there was a school bus, suggests it could have been dark and bad weather.

anewman

kammyk wrote: »

Why would the cyclist claim, if he did not think that he had any evidence to do so?

He broke your sons leg and has the cheek to claim on your house insurance?! I find that very strange, He must have a good reason to do so, otherwise I think a majority of people would have just counted their losses and forgo about it.

The value of his bike?! Supposedly £4,750 and he, stupidly I might add, didn't have insured in any form! He has to have someone to blame and obviously doesn't want to lose that much money. He could leave it at that but he's lost £4,750. He's obviously hoping to complain, get the claim to go through and get his money. But OP has to lose no claims discounts and excesses etc etc, and has already had the displeasure of their son being injured by a cyclist who can't watch where they're going.

The fact the guy had only recently got the bike, didn't know or bother to get it insured, adds to the likelihood that he was an inexperienced rider and in the wrong IMO.

It looks like trying to recollect as much as possible about the whole incident, try get hold of any police reports if that is possible, - and getting legal advice is the way forward.

MyUserNamesTaken

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'd also say people here seem to have jumped to some conclusions perhaps.

Maybe the cyclist with the pricey bike was simply going to/from work.
Maybe he was proceeding at a normal speed, enjoying a nice local trip out for a paper.
Maybe the road was narrow and the bus was pulling in to stop at the bus stop and there was no option but to be on the other side of the road no matter what was going on.
Maybe he was only overtaking at 15mph.
Maybe if he had been speeding/peddling madly the boy would have been more substantially hurt/killed; the cyclist himself would have been thrown off and not able himself to call at the OP's door the next day with a bill.
Maybe the roads were dry, the light good, no lights required.

etc etc

MEGAN115 wrote: »

Hi thank you for taking the time to reply. The cyclist was in full kit and had a racing cycle that he had not long since purchased. My son was looking both ways when he crossed the road but the cycle over took a bus and my son didn't see him until it was too late. The cyclist didn't see my son either and never applied the brakes which then my sons leg took full force of the impact. I believe that maybe there was fault on both sides but struggle to come to terms with the cyclist being able to claim an my son not. The cyclist was going at some speed but no one can prove his exact speed. We had a bus full of children who saw the incident but what they saw cannot be seen as evidence. The cyclist did however knock on my door the day after the accident with a bill for over £3,000 and asked how and when i would pay for his cycle. I refused and asked the police to tell him to stop calling. And so over a year on i am wondering what to do. I do have house insurance and thats who will pay him out but how do i claim and who from????

All the info is available in the above post. The fact that the cyclist didn't even brake seems to indicate he was not paying attention to the road in front of him. A year on indicates some time in winter last year, when the nights were drawing in. He was riding a racing bike and the OP says he was going at some speed.

I think it's very telling that the cyclist knocked on the OP's door the very next day, not to inquire as to how the boy was doing, but to demand money for his bike. It shows what sort of person the cyclist is. It's also telling that the OP had to involve the police to stop the cyclist harassing her.

Markyt

MyUserNamesTaken wrote: »

The fact that the cyclist didn't even brake seems to indicate he was not paying attention to the road in front of him.

It also indicates that the child stepped straight out in front of him and the cyclist had no time to brake.

You cannot draw any conclusions without a number of witnesses.

MyUserNamesTaken

Markyt wrote: »

It also indicates that the child stepped straight out in front of him and the cyclist had no time to brake.

You cannot draw any conclusions without a number of witnesses.

It didn't indicate that at all...the child was hit on the wrong side of the road, when crossing from right to left...that indicates the child was ALREADY in the road crossing when the cyclist started his overtaking. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road when he hit the child.

lisyloo

You are NOT liable for your son's finances or wrong doings (if indeed there are any).

This may be a valid legal point.

If I were in your posistion I would stop listening to the speculation on here (no offence but people do not have the FULL story) and get legal advice on whether you are liable for what your son has done.

Even if your son is at fault it's possible that you aren't liable and I'm not sure what the cyclist would get from taking a 13 year old to court (20p a week from his pocket money?).

You honestly need proper legal advice on this.

Get your house insurance policy out and check for free legal cover.
If not find a solicitor who can deal with this and see if you can get an initial discussion for free.
Even if you have to pay it still may well we worth while.

But don't worry your house insurance company are unlikely to roll over and just pay out. Even if there is a case to answer they will want to counter-claim to reduce their losses.

exel1966

I don't dispute anything the OP has written, BUT this is a partial story only and too many asumptions have been made. There are obviously two sides to this argument and no matter what the other posters state, however good the intentions, unless they are legally qualified in these matters it counts for very little.

Speak to a solicitor !

MEGAN115_2

To all who have so kindly advised i would like to update on this situation. I have been in touch with a solicitor who may be able to help me with a claim. I have also been in touch with the solicitor acting on my behalf against the cyclist and the claim is now been investigated as this is a difficult incident and i believe the blame should not only be my sons, as the police report also states that. I suppose that if the cyclist had insurance on his alledged expensive cycle then this matter would have not been so difficult to sort out but with only me having house insurance i believe i am an easy target for being a responsible individual looking after my interests. Just to add the cyclist did say at the time of the accident that he was going faster than he should have but obviously not saying that now!! Thanks for all of your helpful opinions and will keep updating my progress.

Altarf

jonathon wrote: »

the big question is who's fault was the accident ? did your son just step in front of the bike without looking in which case i would claim of you as well.

A motorist (or cyclist) has more responsibility than just driving legally. They have a responsibility to vulnerable road users.

In this case - (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/28/nboy28.xml) A motorist doing 30 mph (in a 30 mph zone) hit a boy "after he ran out from behind his father's parked Transit van". The motorist's insurer ended up paying the boy £3.5 million.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article151345.ece

"The driver's insurers, GAN, agreed that because the road was narrow with cars parked on either side, its client had been negligent. Until that decision, it had been assumed that such cases would be difficult to win in court."