• Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. To become a full member ( £5.90 a year ) simply click on your user name near the top on the right I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )

Crashes involving Pedestrians

T.C

Been there, and had one
Club Sponsor
Over the last few years, there have been an increasing number and several reported cases where a pedestrian has been injured as a result of walking out into the path of a vehicle, and although it was felt that the drivers had no case to answer, the trial judges has surprisingly found in favour of the careless pedestrian.

One such story is the case of Watson v Skuse (2001). A driver was sued for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a vehicle which was being driven on a main road. The pedestrian dashed out in front of the car and was struck by the vehicle.

The case went to trial and to the surprise of everyone, the judge said that Motorists have a duty of care to all pedestrians and have to exercise a particularly high degree of vigilance to look out for the young, elderly, disabled, infirm and indeed foolish people, and additionally motorists should keep a lookout for pedestrians on the pavement who may be waiting to cross or otherwise liable to step into the road. He then went onto say that Drivers should proceed carefully and slowly in urban and residential areas, particularly when passing schools, shopping areas, bus stops, parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans and stationary buses, at which point he then awarded 30% contributory negligence in favour of the pedestrian making the driver 70% liable.

In the case of Donohoe v Blundel (1986) the claimant was so drunk that he lay in the road not realising that he had been hit by a car. The drunk pedestrian was considered two thirds negligent, making the driver partly liable and in the later case of Lunt v Khelifa (2002) one third liability was awarded to the pedestrian who walked into the road whilst 3 times over the drink drive limit.

These are just a few examples of many, and it would be impossible to cover them all here. Suffice to say, whilst it may seem ludicrous that a driver can be held even partly responsible for the foolish actions of a few stupid pedestrians, unlike road traffic law where it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that someone committed an offence, under civil law, the requirement is only to show on the balance of probability, and so if there is even a glimmer that you could have done something to avoid the collision occurring, then the chances it will not be as straight forward as it first appears and you may just end up having a fight on your hands.
 

silverfox.xx

quocunque jeceris stabit
Anything on cyclists and bikers, I know Trigantle claimed on an uninsured cyclist a few years ago through the cyclists public liability home insurance.
 
Top