No, the child is not liable, the vehicle has to have third party insurance at a minimum. This is for situations as you have just described. In fact, it could be argued that the driver could be found guilty of careless or even dangerous driving in the manner in which he turned into his driveway, as when he did this, he was crossing a public pathway and should have been aware of other persons in the vicinity when making this manoeuvre. Indeed, the fact that your Godchild did not have time to stop is very unsettling.
Children
By their nature, children have less experience than other people in using the road, so you should make extra allowances for their behaviour.
Take care when you are:
You cannot see a small child behind your vehicle through your mirror. If in doubt, get out and check.
- driving beside footpaths where there are young children,
- coming out from side entrances or driveways,
- driving in car parks,
- and reversing, in particular where there are young children.
Be careful near children who are cycling. Take extra care near a school, where cyclists may emerge in groups. Remember, it is hard to predict a young cyclist’s balance and behaviour.
Exactly DB74. Parents, so called, abdicate all responsibility for their child's safety and well-being to someone else, unknown and unidentified. If the unfortunate child is injured as in this case, it's "someone else's" fault. Why can't parents face up to their responsibilities for their children by supervising at play? Apart from motorists who wish to use the public roads to drive on untrammelled, there are other dangers children face these days, from potential abductors or abusers. Protecting children from these dangers is also "someone else's" responsibility I take it, maybe even the motorists.
Knowledge and use of the Rules of the Road, lights, helmets, hi-vis vests, knee and elbow protectors and appropriate supervision that's all that's needed to keep children safe from the evil motorist. Equipping and supplying all the prerequisites are the responsibility of the parents.
It's not that clear cut. The motorist also has a duty of care to pedestrians, cyclists, other vulnerable persons, etc. You also have to take the age of the cyclist into account......it is illegal for a person of any age to cycle on a footpath. Cycling on a footpath at a speed beyond which you can stop if a pedestrian or motorist pulls out of a driveway could be considered reckless.
It's not that clear cut. The motorist also has a duty of care to pedestrians, cyclists, other vulnerable persons, etc. You also have to take the age of the cyclist into account.
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.What are you talking about? How is third party cover for situations like this? The bike hit the car, not the other way around.
The child was not out on the public road, the child was on the pathway as far as I can gather, again, this is exactly why cars have to have a minimum of third party insurance. The vehicle in question was not pulling out of a driveway, on the contrary, it was pulling into a driveway so they should have been alert to see the potential for what actually transpired. The Kilkenny case quoted by Leo was a completely different set of circumstances.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?