pedestrian's liability ?

[Stik]

i had an off monday evening on my 6 week old bb. i was passing - not filtering - a queue of cars lined up for some roadworks ... 5 to 10 mph stuff. a woman chatting on the lhs pavement - who i'd clocked and noted - decides to push her pram between the stationary cars into my path. even though i was aware she was there, i had no time to do much , massive counter steer, but had to drop the bike on the rhs, to avoid hitting the pram. ive broken my collar bone, suspected crack scapula ( ? specialist gonna decide that one tommorrow ??!! ). thank god i did manage to miss the pram, and no oncoming traffic. but as you may know - collar bone - smarts a bit don't it !

the r&g's did a good job, but still have damage to rhs mirror, rhs lower panel, front fender, brake pedal, rhs can, and big hole in rhs of front cowl. as its a new bike, i wanted to replace damage with new parts ... .. looks like ?1500 !! my insurers tell me that even if it was her fault, as she's a pedstrian, its always a 'my fault' claim. why shuld i have that on my record for years to come?

anyony here any knowedge or experience of getting recourse from negligent pedestrians ?

also, if i decide not to put it through insurance, wheres good places for cheaper than honda prices, and or panel repairs ?

now i'm over te shock bit, i'm just in pain and getting angry . . .

thanks in advance - no rush though - 4 to 6 weeks recovery they tell me. . .

 

[ianrobbo1]

been there done that, you could try togo for her via her "household" insurance, however it will be a LONG and EXPENSIVE trek!! if you can get a letter of "liability" or something of that nature it may help the process :dunno:

 

[T.C]

If you have the pedestrians name and address, get a letter of claim off as quickly as possible which they should then pass on to their home content insurer.

If they do not have such a policy, then it will be a case of issuing proceedings through the small claims court.

Pedestrians can and are held liable, to say that it will be a "your claim fault" is a nonsense and they are simply trying to wriggle out of representing you.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Think you'll find your insurance company are talking about "claim" not "blame".

Any claim you make on your insurance counts as a "claim". In an accident you normally have two options for claiming:

1. You personally claim against the other driver etc and recover all your costs. Your insurance company will note the event but it has no effect on you/them.

2. You claim against your insurance and they recover from the other persons insurance. In this scenario they will normally only recover any amounts they have had to pay out - i.e. they won't attempt to recover your policy excess so you can still end up out of pocket. In this case if they recover the full amount they have paid out THEY MAY agree for it not affect your no-claims bonus. Techincally you have still claimed on your insurance even though they recover all costs. if they reach a proportion agreement with the other insurer then you def claimed and it's treated as such.

I've always followed option 1 for these reasons.

For a pedestrian I suspect the onus will be on you to prove they were entirely to blame. I think you'll find it difficult unless you've got some good witnesses you will say the pedestrian was being very dangerous/quick/unexpected in their actions.

Your claim is against the indivdual so you need their name/adress. If they have house insureance it's possible to claim agains that.......

Think you really need some good professional advice to assess your chances.

 

[R2B2]

I would speak urgently to a Law Firm such as InjuryLawyers4U or similar. They have good ideas on the feasibility of a claim because they're no win no pay :dunno:

Don't let this get too far away before you act.

 

[D.S.]

irrespective of blame

my understanding (and I'm pleased to be corrected) is that if you're filtering, according to 40 year old legal precedents, you are at least 40% at blame. This I think relates to a 1966 Court of Appeal case, Powell V Moody.

 

[T.C]

my understanding (and I'm pleased to be corrected) is that if you're filtering, according to 40 year old legal precedents, you are at least 40% at blame. This I think relates to a 1966 Court of Appeal case, Powell V Moody.

Powell v Moody (1966) has been superceded on quite a few occasions as the original case law found the motorcycle to be 80% liable, although the insurers will always quote this particular case even though they know they will get shot down in flames. Many filtering cases are now finding 100% in favour of the motorcyclist, but as with any case it all depends on the circumstances and the evidence available.

= "For a pedestrian I suspect the onus will be on you to prove they were entirely to blame. I think you'll find it difficult unless you've got some good witnesses you will say the pedestrian was being very dangerous/quick/unexpected in their actions.

This rule applies to any crash, and as in any crash although witnesses can help to prove the case, quite often their is other evidence that can be used to substantiate the claim. Remember that unlike a magistrates court or higher where it has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, in a civil case it only has to be "On the balance of probability" and 1% balance of probability has been sufficient inthe past.

Someone like IL4U will only deal with personal injury claims (I was involved with IL4U when they first started), so unless you have an injury worth at least ?1,000 they will not consider it particularly taking into account the introduction of fixed cost cases unlike a conditional fee agreement for higher value cases.

 

[Stik]

thanks for the advice chaps ..

that point about filtering is true, but there was no on coming traffic. i was passing stationary cars .. just as if they d been parked on a high street. when the queue moved - i was slotted back in my place ... that's not filtering

thats why i think she's 100 pc at fault. she walked into a road, between two stationary cars, without looking. bad enough - but she pushed her pram first ....

i think i'll prob be banging my head against a brick wall though ... but better than a road i reckon !

 

[D.S.]

Powell v Moody (1966) has been superceded on quite a few occasions as the original case law found the motorcycle to be 80% liable, although the insurers will always quote this particular case even though they know they will get shot down in flames. Many filtering cases are now finding 100% in favour of the motorcyclist, but as with any case it all depends on the circumstances and the evidence available.

Thanks for pointing that out TC; I shall know in future (should it happen again!). The solicitors I was dealing with kept quoting the Powell V Moody case, but it was all irrelevant in the end when it was discovered that the nice gentleman from Nigeria knocked me off whilst driving his private plated Merc 500SL had a false license

 

[vfrtom]

I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago. A pedesttrian stepped in front of me. He was reading a newspaper. I didn't see him because of the high vehicle. I hit him, and although I was found to be innocent (the police didn't press any charges) I had topay for my own repairs. Both my insurance company and the rottweiler solicitors I spoke to were only concerned as t whether or not the pedestrian would claim against me. Good luck, I suspect you will need it

Tom

 

[Smoothandquick]

I some times wonder.....

what a road is actually used for......if a car driver or motorcyclist is careless whilst using it, they get done....fair and square.....if a pedestrian, who funnily enough has nice pavements made specifically for them, crosses the road or walks out without showing due care and attention and gets clobbered then they are not at fault.....granted we all owe it to pedestrians and ourselves to show diligence and observation for the appropriate traffic conditions but there will be times where you simply cannot see them no matter how careful you filter/ride....the law is an ass in this country.....over paid solicitors have clearly latched on to this makign them a a nice buck and we suffer.....:dunno:

 

[Codbasher]

Why do pushbike riders not have to have insurance??? :dunno:

 

[Smoothandquick]

Case rested me lud........

 

[cbr11xx]

In response to the Cycle issues...

Cycling offences
These offences are covered by Road Traffic Act (1991)

Cycling offences
Dangerous cycling. (similar to Section 2 - Dangerous Driving)
Section 28. A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence.In this section "road" includes a bridleway.
Penalty - Fine (up to) ?2,500

Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling. (similar to Section 3 - Careless, and inconsiderate, Driving)
Section 29. If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.In this section "road" includes a bridleway.
Penalty - Fine (up to) ?1,000

ETC...

And for the purposes of being completely anal:​

Cycling on Pavement - Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he :​

"shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers ? or shall wilfully lead or drive any ? carriage of any description ? upon any such footpath or causeway ". Penalty - Fine (up to) ?500​

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines". This has also been interpreted to include motorcycles, etc...​

 

[Smoothandquick]

Nowt to cover inane pedestrians tho is there ? Perhaps we should try riding and driving on pavements instead ? :neenaw:

 

[cbr11xx]

It would be interesting if a driver/rider was to persue the CPS prosectuting a pedestrian for Criminal Damage....

Criminal Damage Act 1971
Criminal damage is the intentional or reckless destruction or damage of property belonging to another person without lawful excuse. This offence is punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment. For aggravated criminal damage of yours or another person's property (when a life is intentionally or recklessly threatened) then the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

 

[Duck n Dive]

It would be interesting if a driver/rider was to persue the CPS prosectuting a pedestrian for Criminal Damage....

Criminal Damage Act 1971
Criminal damage is the intentional or reckless destruction or damage of property belonging to another person without lawful excuse. This offence is punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment. For aggravated criminal damage of yours or another person's property (when a life is intentionally or recklessly threatened) then the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

Good point there.......suspect it wud hinge around the first two conditions or intentional or reckless.

I'd guess that you'd not be able to prove a pedestrian stepped out with the express intention of causing such damage..............

That leaves reckless........ given that pedestrians who want to cross the road are expected to walk across then I'd think reckless would have to look at where they crossed (were there alernatives like a proper crossing point a few yards away), what the traffic was doing. If it's at a standstill the walking between vehicles might be reasonable. if it was moving at a steady nose-to-tail 25 MPH then maybe not.

I'm led to believe that the CPS use three main criteria to make decisins.
1. Has a specific law been broken?
2.Is it considered provable in a court (i.e. sufficient evidence)?
3. Is prosecution in the public interest?

If they can't "tick" all three they don't bother.
Isn't that way John Prescott didn't get prosecuted for a bout of physical violence a couple of elections ago? It seemed 1 & 2 were OK but they decided 3 was a "no" so no charges brought.

 

[ianrobbo1]

now you all new I couldn't leave it didn't you??? :}
should bring back hanging for ALL the above offences :}

and I'll say again it's the "un lit" cyclists that ride where they want that need fekin with a big stick,!! the "dayglo" boys & girls don't cause me any grief with their "racing" stuff at least THEY can be seen!! :dunno:

 

[Stik]

Thanks Officers . . . for nothing.

I spoke with the officers who attended the scene of my little spill . I need the name and address of the pedestrian who walked in front of me, and of course any witnesses . . .( there were three genuinely kind people helping me on the ground before the ambulance arrived)

The police have told me the pedestrian had left the scene ( I wonder why ? )and no witnesses were available to provide statements. I asked what time they turned up - 35 minutes after the ambulance had taken me to A & E ! Fookin' marvellous . . I asked if they knocked an any doors etc. - ( surely its not everyday they get an RTA and ambulance sirens kicking off outside the front garden? ). Their response was there would be no further investigation as a) no fatalities, b) little point in pursuing it,as the pedestrian would be unlikely to be found at fault !

I counted to 10 . . . . calmed down and said thanks for nothing.

Since when did they start deciding the outcome of court cases? What gives him the right to decide it would be pointless ? Naturally my solicitor thinks the opposite is true, but aren't we supposed to let a judge decide ? Unbelieveable - and this policemans is a biker aswell ! ( or so he said ) . . .

Anyways - stuff the police ( next time they ask for my help, they can kiss my a*se ) - me and the missus laminated some " accident here, did you see . . . " notices and put them up around the spot - I'm not holding my breath, but you never know.

Meanwhile, shoulders better day by day, but the insurance still not sent an assessor round yet !

 

[derek kelly]

Stik

Try the Criminal injuries compensation authority, they may say it is not their jurisdiction, and argue that it was not a violent crime, but you can argue that you have been left injured as a result of someone else's wrecklessness, so therefore you are a victim of violent crime,
it's got to be worth a try

www.cica.gov.uk

good luck