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

laurz121

I would say that the child was definetly at fault, maybe not entirely and the cyclist may have to take some fault (this is impossible to tell given just the information we have) but the child was definetly at fault at least partially.

The first thing that needs asking is why was the child crossing in front of a bus? (close enough that he could not see somebdoy overtaking it)? This in itself puts the child at fault.

The fact that the child was hit on the wrong side of the road is irrelevant. I've overtaken many cars and never once have I managed to do it in the same lane of traffic as them, I have always had to go out to the opposite sde of the road. This is normally done by looking to make sure it is clear and then overtaking.
The big and deciding issue here is, was the child already visible (ie in the middle of the road) when the cyclist began to overtake? Or did he step out at the last minute and walk straight into him? The fact that the cyclist didnt brake means nothing as the child may have stepped out too late (Remember the child took no evasive action either).

I think this all comes down to why the child decided to cross the road when he did. Did he look down the road and there was no cyclist? If he couldnt see the cyclist due to the bus then he shouldnt have been crossing as the cyclist could not see him either. And also how much time was there between him stepping out from an hidden position (behind the bus etc) into the cyclists path and actually being hit was there? If there was literally no time at all then again, child's fault. If there was a fair gap then the cyclist should have seen him.

Heaven-Leigh

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????

I am sure from taking my driving test ( some years ago) that in the highway code it does state that a pedistrian has the right of way.
( please no one shoot me down for saying that )
If that is the case then the cyclist is a fault not your son
Wish you well
x

Lorian

Heaven-Leigh wrote: »

I am sure from taking my driving test ( some years ago) that in the highway code it does state that a pedistrian has the right of way.
( please no one shoot me down for saying that )

No flames, but I presume you are referring to 1-35 paragraph 8

"At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way"

Which applies only to junctions, and when the pedestrian has already started crossing.

relevant in this case, I presume:

Section 1-35 Paragraph 32, Rules for pedestrians, Situations needing extra care

"Buses. Get on or off a bus only when it has stopped to allow you to do so. Watch out for cyclists when you are getting off. Never cross the road directly behind or in front of a bus. Wait until it has moved off and you can see clearly in both directions."

LuciferTDark

First neither of them should be claiming from anyone as they're both at fault, the boy for not looking for a safe place to cross (green cross code ring any bells?) & the cyclist for not being more observant of idiot pedestrians just stepping out into the road while obviously in a world of their own.

GREEN CROSS CODE:

Find a Safe place to cross
Stop before the kerb
Look & listen for traffic
If there's traffic coming let it pass
WHEN it's safe cross the road without running.

lisyloo

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

I don't think this is the case at all.
If the guy claimed off his insurance then the insurer would still want to go after you.
If it had been £200 then they wouldn't bother but with thousands of £s worth at stake then they would probably have a go at getting their share back.

Insurance companies will try to pursue the money from 3rd parties.

They only shell out money themselves if either
a) the case isn't strong enough i.e. their own fault
b) the defnedant has no money to pay e.g. a tramp
c) the legal costs would exceed the money retrieved (which would be the case if it was a low value claim).

I think you are wrong if you think that an insurance policy would solve the issue.
It would not make any difference.
The liability for the accident would still need to be settled.
you'd just be dealing with an insurance company rather than an individual/his solicitor.

Voyager2002

One other point:

The OP asked why the cyclist could claim, but s/he could not. In fact, IF it is possible to put a cash value on the child's injuries, and IF it could be established that the accident was the cyclist's fault, then the cyclist could be sued for damages. Quite how he raises the money to pay such damages is his problem, not a matter for the OP to worry about, but if the cyclist possesses any kind of home contents insurance the policy probably includes cover for personal liability and so would meet any such claim.

vikingaero

Sounds like a battle of percentages: 60% cyclist 40% child or 40% cyclist 60% child = net winner, lawyers, insurance companies and the Govt with the extra tax..........

anewman

Voyager2002 wrote: »

but if the cyclist possesses any kind of home contents insurance the policy probably includes cover for personal liability and so would meet any such claim.

You think a cyclist who doesn't insure a £5k cycle he takes on the street would insure his house?

lisyloo

You think a cyclist who doesn't insure a £5k cycle he takes on the street would insure his house?

I do yes !!

I would certainly insure a house worth 6 figures but might not insure smaller items I can afford to replace.

However whether he has insurance or not is irrelevant.
If he is liable he has to pay.
Now unless he's a tramp there are ways to extract money from people (like sending a balliff in to take a £5K bike). It's more expensive because you have to pay courts and balliffs etc. but if he's liable he has to pay.
We don't know his circumstances but if he has a £5K bicycle then he probably has some means to pay as he's clearly not a homeless tramp.

Don't confuse insurance and liability.
Insurance might make certaian processes easier but there are still statutory laws out there and people can be taken to civil courts and can be made to pay.

The two ways that are know of of forcing people to pay (once a court judgement has been won) are
1) Getting balliffs to seize their goods
2) Getting an attachment of earning so their employer is forced to pay any amounts awarded directly. Employers hate the extra work so this will make him unpopular.

If he has an unpaid court judgement against him it will screw up his credit record for 6 years.

So can we please get away from the idea that insurance cures all ills.
Firstly liability is seperate from insurance as there are civil laws.
Secondly insurers do persue 3rd parties, so it doesn't stop them coming after you.
Thirdly they don't just roll over and pay out, they argue about liability, so it doesn't avoid all the arguments about libility.