I crashed my motorcycle and it slid into a parked car. because the car was parked illegally ( too close to a junction) I did not have to pay
As a former claims manager, I'd like to see the working out there.
Pedestrians obviously don't have to have insurance. Which is not the same thing as "can't be liable".
Meanwhile over on Pistonheads
"Where do I stand with the curtain twitcher self entitlement neighbour with the feral child who is trying to avoid his civil responsibility after my legally parked MOT'd and 'taxed' classic Talbot Rancho was damaged by said child"
" Can I small claims court for the damage or future increased costs of insurance?"
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
As a former claims manager, I’d like to see the working out there.
I was surprised but thats what happened. Long time ago now but I know it wasn't even "knock for knock" but that I was not deemed liable as the car was only damaged because it was parked on a roundabout ( big wide roundabout with shops on it in a suburban estate) Maybe foreseeable risk? ie the car owner by parking where they did had put their car in harms way? dunno. Did a lot of damage to the car as well.
ie the car owner by parking where they did had put their car in harms way?
I had my car written off by a rally car once. Parked off the road in a seemingly safe space. Safety cars and road closure cars came through and didn't bat an eye.
One of the last cars through went off the road and took out my car and the car parked next to it.
I figured there would be some sort of 3rd party insurance, either for the rally car driver or for the event to cover damage caused by competitors but apparently not. I had to use my insurance and the other guy, who only had 3rd party, had to suck it up.
I think you have to take some responsibility for where you decide to park your car. Even if those places are entirely legal and all your documents are up to date.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
In your case I'd hope I was dealing with someone reasonable, I'd certainly be expecting to cover his excess and increase in premium.
he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things
Not if he's running some sort of low level trading he's not.
The kid’s caused damage to someone’s property, the parents should be paying to make good. It’s no different from hoofing a football through their window.
its all about facts and circumstances. If the owner of a car knows that an area is commonly used by children for playing and he still parks there, to some extend I expect a court would say he parked at his own risk.
he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things. Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?
im not sure he actually has any right to park a vehicle on the highway. Its accepted custom and practice and there are rules about it but I think its overstating it to say they’re is a “right” to park vehicles. That doesn’t mean it absolves someone of liability but it’s not quite as clear cut as that.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
Exactly the facts and circumstance that make it not 100% automatic that liability rests with kid (and thus parent). If you really want to mess with your head imagine 7yr old Alan goes to play with 7yr old friend Bob. Alan’s mother understand that Bob’s father is supervising them. Bob’s father is actually in the back garden fixing his bike. Alan and Bob are playing in the front garden. They migrate to the pavement where a neighbours car gets damaged after Alan comes into contact with it? Who is liable? Potentially Bob’s dad! But what if Alan tripped and fell into the car 100% accidentally, hardly foreseeable that it would result in damage (but it could). What if another kid Charlie had joined them and Bob’s dad was not even aware Charlie was there - what if Charlie pushed Alan into the car? What if Alan, bob and Charlie had been squabbling outside for 20 minutes and there had been lots of pushing and shoving in all directions and it just happened that the damage came that time? What if the car meant the pavement was narrower and so the risk of contact/damage was greater Etc etc.
for what it’s worth if you park your car on the public highway you always run the risk of either accidental or malicious damage. You may get an honest citizen offering to make that good but even if they are insured (eg via house insurance) I’m not sure many car insurers would bother to pursue that if there was any resistance. Of course insurers often want an easy way out rather than truely determining who is at fault - but they are pragmatically aware of the costs of proving a point.
Having kids sounds expensive and fraught with decisions affected my morals.
Think I'll get a dog.
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
Ooh the plot has gone awry .. child was learning to ride her bike on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end , next door neighbour has beef with them and likes to park cars as close as possible etc to be obstructive , even places obstructions behind other peoples cars , like unseen wheely bins etc.
Anyway its a tiny dent the kind paintless dent removal would get out .
Such is the boredom of life on the sac i thought it might make interesting debate.
As much as we're being socially engineered to hate cars and drivers it's simple. If the kid was moving and the car wasn't then it's the parents responsibility. Remember the first rule.
If you'd left your flyweight uberbike outside while you nipped back for that extra protein bar before your big ride and a neighbour's kid knocked it over, what would you want the outcome to be?
You can try for caveats like was the car parked dangerously or illegally but if it's always parked like that, it begs the question why didn't you radie the issue sooner.
Any justification for why the child didn't see it, or was unable to stop?
Drac
Full Member
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
Morally, yes. Legally, only if negligence can be proved.
If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
OK, so why did my insurance have to pay when a rally car hit my car? Perhaps because the owner has to accept some responsibility for where their car is parked.
If it was their only car and it was parked on the road outside their house then you would might have a case.
One of six cars parked where kids are known to play? I would say the owner must have known there was a risk of damage and accepted that risk.
Don't think it's quite as clear cut as the car lobby would like us to believe. Your home might be your castle but any random bit of ground you choose to leave your six cars is not.
Parent is not automatically liable, but may be if they were negligent in some way.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
Based on the kids in my street, very easily. Most of them have no clue that they're not supposed to be running across neighbours driveways and gardens. Little idiots.
They could be seen as negligent in that they should have shut the gate so the child could not "gone off the end" and potentially into any traffic, cars, people etc,.
Could have just as easily ridden into an old person walking down the road and knocked them over but then we will soon have laws for that sort of dangerous cycling which can't come soon enough as these 7 year olds need to be in prison.
Such is the boredom of life on the sac
🤣
This thread is giving me a good insight into why birth rates are falling.
Good luck getting your car to wipe your arse when you're in the nursing home.
not being parked legally has no input either.
Not according to my insurance co. as above I was NOT liable for hitting an illegally parked car
Good luck getting your car to wipe your arse when you’re in the nursing home.
Still hoping the government will allow me to kill myself by then but realise that is pretty hopeful in this backward country.
I suggest you go do some reading
@covert what about? 3rd party liability cover only pays out when you're legally liable. In this case the kid (and their parents) are not. They do not pay out when you feel bad about a situation and want to make it right.
1st party insurance can cover you for unexpected losses. In this case the car owner has had an unexpected loss.
The only insurance that provides any cover in this scenario is the car owners third party cover.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
Well, not having insurance doesn't stop you being liable, it just means you have to find the money yourself. We used to apply for attachment of earnings orders, sometimes got a charge put on their property.
Interesting so many focusing on the strict legal liability/negligence view. A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
Think I’ll get a dog.
Then, when it runs into a car and damages it, you will be liable as you are responsible for the dog 😉
A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
Yes, mostly by people who feel that kids' experiences growing up should be built around ensuring they understand that cars have the indisputable right to all public spaces.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
fork on backwards? 🤣
In your case I’d hope I was dealing with someone reasonable, I’d certainly be expecting to cover his excess and increase in premium.
To take the scenario to extremes, what if just after parking your (undamaged) car in a car park, it caught fire unexpectedly and burned the car next to it? Or if it burned down an entire multistory with a few million quids worth of cars and structural damage, as happened last year? The moral thing to do hasn't changed - your car caused damage to other property. The legal obligation hasn't changed - you are not liable and your insurance won't pay out the 3rd parties. Do you sell your house to pay the excess and increase in costs on 100 cars?
"As much as we’re being socially engineered to hate cars and drivers"
Lol! What nonsense is this? I wish it were true btw but really, you think that?
Being socially engineered to hate perhaps....
especially if it’s parked near/on a kids play area.
Unless the road is a kids play area then doesn't sound like it was.
@covert what about? 3rd party liability cover only pays out when you’re legally liable. In this case the kid (and their parents) are not. They do not pay out when you feel bad about a situation and want to make it right.
1st party insurance can cover you for unexpected losses. In this case the car owner has had an unexpected loss.
The only insurance that provides any cover in this scenario is the car owners third party cover.
Whilst I totally agree that 3rd party liability would only pay out if a household member (adult or child) are legally liable, I'm not convinced I, or you, know what the exact situation is here. In principle though it is perfectly possible for the parent of a child to be legally liable for the damage their child has done to the property of a third party.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
It might not be the case of it being very good of me. We have a resident claims manager in the house who can fill in the blanks but even if you did choose to claim on your own insurance, your insurance company might not be so benevolent. IF I was traceable AND if my legal liability is easily provable (i.e. you saying you saw me and it being your word against mine might not be enough) AND I looked worth pursuing from a cold hard cash capacity to pay for some or all of the cost either through the pound in my pocket or my 3rd party liability I'd either got through my house insurance or my British Cycling membership, I would not be surprised if your insurance company spread the love a little and came for me or my insurers. If I was a homeless alcoholic with 30p in my pocket, not so much as it simply would not be worth their while.
Unless the road is a kids play area then doesn’t sound like it was.
This is the really sad thing.
In many cases it's impossible for kids to find an area to play that doesn't have cars nearby. And people are so conditioned to think that their car and any land it happens to sit on is an extension of their property that they assume if anything happens to their car it is the other person who is at fault.
Car people need to accept that attitudes are changing. Public spaces are public spaces. Kids are going to play whether it is a designated play area or not.
Don't get me wrong. I ****ing hate kids but play is in their nature and adhering to arbitrary boundaries of what is and isn't a play area is not.'
I accepted that a rally car writing off my car was my responsibility. Car owners who get the occasional ding from a kid cannonballing around on their bike need to do the same.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
fork on backwards?
🤣
I going with euro brake set up
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
So parking a car 3/4 over a pavement so my son* could be barley squeeze past on his bike is ok? Told the nob head whose car it was that I wasn't paying for the scratch and to call the police. Never heard anything more
* he was 5 or 6 yrs old
If he’s a total waaaaaaka and parked in a stupid place where it was predictable it wouldhappen, I’d tell him to ****rightorf and that he needs to try suing the 7 year old. He won’t get far with that.
+1
Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!
Some questionable morals in here tonight….
On the one had yes.
On the other hand if he's been effectively running a car dealership from the kids play area for years then he should pay them a fair amount in "rent" for the loss of amenity over the years. Legally obviously that could probably neve happen but morally it'd be reason enough to tell him to go swivel on it.
Similar situation when mine were toddlers on bikes. cars on the pavement were fair game for scrapy metal bits on the handle bars. even before that....if there was a car blocking the pavement I took that as a challenge to get the pram through the gap
cars on the pavement were fair game
Whilst I don't think I would go out of my way to ensure I scrapped a car in that situation (that still breaks rule 1 in my book), I'd not go to any great lengths to prevent damage happening either.
equally I find it interesting that some folk are focusing on the moral/civic duty element regarding damage to the car - whilst totally ignoring car owner's moral imperative to be a decent neighbour rather than a selfish git who inconveniences everyone else in the cul-de-sac and thinks only of himself. 🤔 Oh I forgot, car is king and trumps all 😂 No wonder society is going down the shitter!Interesting so many focusing on the strict legal liability/negligence view. A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
then he should pay them a fair amount in “rent” for the loss of amenity over the years.
In thel hundreds to thousands of pounds a year per car - thats the rental value of that land per car
equally I find it interesting that some folk are focusing on the moral/civic duty element regarding damage to the car – whilst totally ignoring car owner’s moral imperative to be a decent neighbour rather than a selfish git who inconveniences everyone else in the cul-de-sac
Indeed.
If you want to play, 'Who is the bigger ****?' then in the red corner you've got a guy with six cars who parks them in common areas (and deliberately parks them in such a way that the neighbour is inconvenienced).
In the blue corner you've got the parents of a 7 year old who was learning to ride their bike in their driveway.
Yeah, morally (and probably legally as well) Mr Six-Cars can swivel.
If I remember the start of To Kill a Mockingbird correctly, Atticus Finch's first clients were the last people to be hanged in the county. They murdered someone and Atticus failed to persuade them that "The son-of-a-bitch had it coming" was not a sensible defense strategy. Same thing goes with damaging people's cars. If the car is legally parked, stating that "The son-of-a-bitch had it coming" is not going to make your case any stronger.
In the blue corner you’ve got the parents of a 7 year old who was learning to ride their bike in their driveway.
If the car was parked on the property of the kid's parents without permission, then that's on the car's owner. If it was legally parked on the street out front and the kid zoomed down the driveway and out into the street and hit it, the parents would be well advised to pay up and not advertise to the authorities that they weren't supervising their kid and put him in danger of being hit by a passing car.
If the car is legally parked, stating that “The son-of-a-bitch had it coming” is not going to make your case any stronger.
If you park the car in a public area then to a certain extent you do have it coming.
It's a change of mindset that is needed. 'Car is King' and 'My Home (and by extension My Car) is My Castle' are views that were formed in the last century and desperately need changing if we are going to build healthy communities.
Cars should be treated like any other property. If it's that valuable to you then you need to take reasonable steps to ensure it is safe. That doesn't mean abandoning them in areas used by the general public. If you want to keep 6 cars safe then you have to ensure you have enough space to keep them safe.
A 7 year old learning to ride their bike is a common every day activity. Sometimes they are going to cause minor damage to property. There was no negligence by the parents (unless you are saying that modern parents don't do enough helicopter parenting and someone should have literally been running around after them ready to grab hold at any second) so there is no liability.
https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/child-law/child-accidents-compensation-liability
Liability of parents and carers
In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable.So if the child was accompanied by a responsible adult at the time of the incident, it may be possible to take legal action against the adult. However, it will have to be shown that the adult acted negligently.
Even if the child was not with a responsible adult, it may be possible to take legal action against an adult for failing to oversee the child at the time of the accident. This, of course, depends on whether the adult owed a duty of care towards others at the time.
Maybe, in addition to mandatory 3rd party insurance for children, we should be keeping them on a leash at all times until they reach 16.
A pity that not every housing estate in the last 50 years since mine was built hadn't been designed as well. Still enough parking both on street and shared carpark 59 years on. Footpaths largely separated from roads. So every day I see kids from P1 on bikes and scooters going along the paths to school.
As for cars taking up valuable road space. The roads were built and paid for by the householders (via the builder) and have not needed resurfacing in half a century. Most street are not through roads so there is no traffic being obstructed. Cars are great but need the right infrastructure.
As for the new roads just fill up mantra. Go and look at Edinburgh Road in Glasgow. 6 lanes. Nice grass central reservation. Very light traffic. Because a new motorway built 50 years ago took the traffic away. Countless other examples. All the towns bypassed by the new A9 in the 1970s for example.
