child cyclist versus car - liability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If there is contributory negligence on the part of the motorist, ( which given the sparse facts relating to the circumstances of the incident, is not conclusive ) then no matter if the pedestrian or cyclist is high on drugs, the insurance company will pay out.

In relation to the last line of the above post, it is relatively common for insurance companies to settle cases ( without the consent of the policyholder ) even where the policyholder is in the right. Look at those sneaky terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy, the insurance company reserves this right.
 
Rebuttal said:
If a cyclist hits your car when you are driving, the cyclist can take a claim against your insurance policy for any damage to the bike or injury to the person. Regardless of who is at fault, most insurance companies will settle with the claimant as the extortionate fees charge by our wigged legal types in defending a case will, in most cases, far exceed any claim by the third party. Welcome to the real world.

Peteb, have you ever heard of the legal concept of contributory negligence.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal, I'm very familiar with the concept. You should probably read a bit more of other posts by other people before you throw in silly questions in such a manner.

As Leo has said in reference to your other point, its very rare. Have you heard of how insurance works??
 
Rebuttal said:
If there is contributory negligence on the part of the motorist, ( which given the sparse facts relating to the circumstances of the incident, is not conclusive ) then no matter if the pedestrian or cyclist is high on drugs, the insurance company will pay out.

In relation to the last line of the above post, it is relatively common for insurance companies to settle cases ( without the consent of the policyholder ) even where the policyholder is in the right. Look at those sneaky terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy, the insurance company reserves this right.
Click to expand...

Categoric crap. Its actually more likely that a cyclist's (and veering away from it being a child) personal liability under their household contents cover will pay out the claim made by the motorist against the cyclist.
 
peteb said:
Rebuttal, I'm very familiar with the concept. You should probably read a bit more of other posts by other people before you throw in silly questions in such a manner.

As Leo has said in reference to your other point, its very rare. Have you heard of how insurance works??
Click to expand...
I obviously know more about how insurance works than you do
 
Last edited by a moderator:
peteb said:
Categoric crap. Its actually more likely that a cyclist's (and veering away from it being a child) personal liability under their household contents cover will pay out the claim made by the motorist against the cyclist.
Click to expand...


Cyclist Collides With My Car - Insurance Company To Invite Claim
Submitted by xzzx on Tue, 13/11/2012 - 14:19
  • [broken link removed]


I am a car driver. I've just had a very disturbing call from my insurance company after I reported to them, for information only, the fact that a pedal cyclist had collided with my car whilst I was in slow-moving/stationary traffic when I was edging forward (meaning I was moving forward when traffic conditions allowed and was stationary when they did not) to turn left from a main road onto a side road. The cyclist came up the inside of me and hit the side of my car, denting it. He remained on his feet and the bicycle remained between his legs. I asked the cyclist three times if he had been hurt and he replied 'no' each time, and after giving me his name and address rode off with no problem. He also said his bike appeared to be undamaged. I was stationary when the cyclist hit my car, although had moved a few feet forward a second or two earlier. The cyclist said he did not expect to speak to me again and at the time I could see no damage to my car (in the light I can see a small dent). The cyclist had a light on his bicycle but I noticed it was not switched on despite it being after dark. The street was lit.

My insurance company were given all the above information. Their 'liability assessor' has advised me that in a collision between a cyclist and a car, that the car driver is always deemed to be at fault. When I asked for details of the law or rules that indicated this, he said it was their company policy and not a law nor in the highway code. He said that they were going to write to the cyclist to ask him if he intended to claim for injury or damage. I asked him not to invite a claim and he said it was their decision and not mine.

We did have a fairly heated discussion - with the liability assesor making completely inappropriate analogies such as who would I think was to blame if someone edged out FROM a side street into a main road and I hit them. I pointed out that I was turning left from a main road INTO a side street (completely different), that the cyclist had come up the inside of me (I was at all times no more than about two feet from the kerb), and was obviously riding at a speed that was inappropriate for the road conditions if he had been unable to stop as I edged forward slowly in traffic that was stationary for long periods. The cyclist even apologised for shouting at my car as he approached as he said he had seen I was turning left and wanted me to stop - I did not hear him shouting.

I am left now in fear that the insurance company will write to the cyclist and bring a claim against me/my insurance policy for which I will end up paying in future premiums etc. because it is convenient for them to do so. The assessor said that judges in legal cases always come down on the side of the cyclist which also concerned me. This means that they take the view it is better to write, settle a claim for a few hundred pounds and know that the matter was settled. He said that I had admitted I was moving ('edging forward') and that meant the blame was mine. My definition of edging forward had been clearly advised to him per above and he was certainly not my advocate.

My questions are: Do judges really favour cyclists in these sorts of events, can the insurance company override my wishes and 'invite' a claim, and does it sound like if a claim is made I have a strong legal position to defend it?
 
I rest my case, I live in the real world, cyclist do not require insurance to cycle in public places, drivers of vehicles however do.
 
As opposed to make it look like it came from here, you should probably be clear, Rebuttal, for the reading public that you have copied this from a UK website.

do you live in the real world Ireland or real world UK? :eek:
 
Ireland and the UK have the same common law legal systems, so the same principles of law apply in both Countries. Hence courts in this Country can rely on legal precedents and determinations in the UK. I would have expected an insurance expert like yourself to have known this very basic fact. Face facts, you are wrong!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rebuttal said:
Ireland and the UK have the same common law legal systems, so the same principles of law apply in both Countries. Hence courts in this Country can rely on legal precedents and determinations in the UK. I would have expected an insurance expert like yourself to have known this very basic fact.
Click to expand...

Cultural differences between jurisdictions affects insurance covers outside of your common law.

As I said, not really interest in pig-tailing pulling fight. So roll on.
 
In the UK, if I am hit by an uninsured driver then I have to claim off my own policy and will lose my no claims bonus as well as being stung for the excess......

A question asked on a board in a foreign country - seriously?
 
Thanks for that link mathepac, wasn't aware of it. Differs from our MIBI scheme though in that:
Claims will be considered for the cost of repairing/replacing your vehicle (comprehensively insured policyholders precluded), hire charges, loss of use and property damage. An injured party can also claim for treatment and/or rehabilitation for pain and suffering. Legal costs are paid in full by the MIB once the claim is proven.
Click to expand...

Friend of mine got caught out on it a few years ago.

@Rebuttal, while it is true that the higher courts here do ocassionally entertain the use of UK judgements as precedent they do not necessarily follow them as although both systems (along with Aus, Canada and a few others) use Common Law, they have (obviously) many different laws.
 
peteb said:
Cultural differences between jurisdictions affects insurance covers outside of your common law.

As I said, not really interest in pig-tailing pulling fight. So roll on.
Click to expand...

Peteb,

These cultural differences between jurisdictions in no way affect how insurance companies apply the terms of a mortgage policy, seriously you are clutching at straws. Oh and by the way it's your common law as well, unless you believe you don't have to abide by it. So roll on yourself.
 
Leo said:
Such baseless statements do nothing to strengthen your argument.
Click to expand...
I don't care if you don't like hearing the truth about the matter, facts is, from your posts, I definitely do know more about insurance and how it works.
 
Mrs Vimes said:
Thanks for that link mathepac, wasn't aware of it. Differs from our MIBI scheme though in that:


Friend of mine got caught out on it a few years ago.

@Rebuttal, while it is true that the higher courts here do ocassionally entertain the use of UK judgements as precedent they do not necessarily follow them as although both systems (along with Aus, Canada and a few others) use Common Law, they have (obviously) many different laws.
Click to expand...

Mrs Vimes,

If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd. When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it. The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day. Fact. Whether you like it or not. There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.
 
Rebuttal said:
Mrs Vimes,

If you read a history book the English ruled over this Country for 800 years odd.
Click to expand...

Link? :p

Rebuttal said:
When we became a separate sovereign Country, we imported all this English law onto our statute and renamed it.
Click to expand...

When we became a separate sovereign country we didn't have a whole lot in the way of insurance law or road traffic law for that matter. Obviously our laws have developed in a similar fashion to those in the UK but I don't think it's correct to say we merely renamed all English laws.

Rebuttal said:
The common law principles remained the same and still do to this day.
Click to expand...

"Common law principles" basically refers to precedent as a guiding factor in how judges rule. A poster on a board in a foreign country stating that she was told by a Loss Assessor, who she appears to think didn't understand the circumstances of her accident in the first place, would not constitute precedent in an Irish court.

Rebuttal said:
Fact. Whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

You have a very dismissive and condescending attitude towards posters who disagree with you which is fortunately uncommon on this particular board. Stick around a while, apparently some people don't notice for at least a month.:rolleyes:

Rebuttal said:
There is no real significant difference between how an insurance assessor or loss adjuster looks at an insurance claim in this Country or in the UK.
Click to expand...

You would find it extremely significant if you had comprehensive insurance and were hit by an uninsured driver, losing your no claims bonus, or were the victim of a hit and run without spare money for your legal costs.
 
Last edited:
Where should young children be cycling, on the road ! If a child does damage another persons property, the liability may fall on the parents, but only in specific circumstances. The child themselves cannot be held liable, even if the damage caused is deliberate ( age of criminal responsibility in this Country is 12 years of age )

However, in the case alluded to by the original poster, a motorist had turned in from a road and was proceeding into their driveway when the child, cycling their bike on the footpath, collided with the car. Most 7 year old girls would not be travelling at 30 km/h ( not in Tour de France ), so the question that begs to be asked, why did the driver of the vehicle not see the child. Pedestrians and cyclists take precedence over vehicles with regard to right of way when on a footpath or indeed on our roads. If the driver didn't see the child when they ought to have, that is called careless or dangerous driving. If the driver did see the child but continued to make the manoeuvre, thinking they would make it into the driveway before the child arrived at that point, that may also be classed as careless or dangerous driving.

Indeed, even if the car was parked in the driveway, driverless and the end of the car was sticking out onto the footpath, the owner of the vehicle would be liable if the child collided with it. They could also be summons by the Gardai for being parked wholly or partially on a footpath. The simple fact is, the bicycle and child do not require third party insurance, the vehicle and it's owner do.

I hope peteb likes my post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top