Pedestrain hit by car

[Desperate Daniella]

Bobbins was in the middle of the road with a baby in a pushchair. How can she be to blame? If she isn't to blame she should be reimbursed for her losses. If he won't do that she should go to his insurance company.

 

He may not have been speeding but if he couldn't see Bobbins and the pushchair he was going too fast for the road conditions. When I was literally crawling up Reigate Hill because I was blinded by sunlight people were overtaking me at about 50-60 mph. If I was blinded so were they; when I stopped alongside them at the lights they weren't wearing sunglasses.

 

If the police think he didn't see Bobbins because of the sun shining on the wet road he was driving too fast for those conditions. I expect his insurers would think so.

 

Cars may be "pedestrian friendly" but smacking into a small child in a pushchair and knocking it down the road doesn't guarantee there will be no injury to a small child. I can't imagine how terrified Bobbins must have been in those few seconds before she discovered her little boy was alive.

[Bobbins04]

If the driver didnt live on my street i dont think we would of approached him, the police passed on all his insurence details to us and we would of just gone straight through them.

 

Infact the main reason my husband went round was to show him my little boy was fine as we appreciate it must of been horrific for him to see as well, the driver has also confirmed to us that he would like to see him.

 

I have also said to my husband that i think its maybe best for him as well as us to go through the insurence as like you have rightly said some people would then make a future claim.

 

I have no problem going through his insurence, and im not expecting him to say here have a load of cash to compensate you. Infact i can see it being the opposite. And to be honest part of me wonders if persuing the cost of my pushchair is really worth it.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi,

 

The only reason he may wish to settle with you directly is because he may not wish to deal through his insurance company if he thinks it will increase his premiums, and it will depend on his driving history.

 

His insurance company should settle with you if that is the way to go forward.

 

DD

[Bobbins04]

Ow it just all seems a mess

[caro]

Don't stress about it bobbins. You should do what is right for you and your family.

[Desperate Daniella]

The driver was clearly concerned about your son, so let's hope he is reasonable and helpful. You are being very reasonable.

[Bobbins04]

Just a quick follow up.....

 

My husband came home from work and believes its best for both sides, us and the driver to do it all through his insurence. The driver believes the same so there will be no meeting him as planned. And i have just contacted them.

 

Im guessing im in for quite a wait now....

 

Apart from a little melt down earlier im feeling much stonger about doing this and hopefully will recover my costs through the insurence if not i will try and go through a solicitor.

 

Thankyou to everyone who replied.

[Desperate Daniella]

That's probably more sensible.

 

Glad you are feeling stronger, and I hope it isn't too long before it is resolved.

 

I can understand your meltdown. I am sure you are still shocked by what happened.

 

Please let us know what happens.

 

DDx

[caro]

I think you're doing absolutely the right thing. It's what insurance is for and avoids any awkward meetings.

[heliosuk]

Exactly, this is what I have been advocating. There is an element of doubt so let the insurance companies sort it out. Even more so in this case as you don't know what might happen a few months down the line.

 

At least now it's officially recorded.

[Ganymede]

.and now we all understand why our insurance is so high. so many people on this thread advocating the claims culture that fuels it. If people could just seperate the direct financial loss (which should be claimed for and covered) and the ",,oh you need a couple of grand to pay for a holiday to recouperate..." then perhaps we could all enjoy a little bit lower insurances!

 

 

 

What crap are you spouting? This poor woman and her son have been injured due to the negligence of the driver, of course she should claim.

 

Maybe if the negligent driver had been paying more attention and driving more carefully he wouldn't have run over an innocent mother and baby.

 

The only one responsible for a rise in their insurance is the incompetent driver.

[crem]

What crap are you spouting? This poor woman and her son have been injured due to the negligence of the driver, of course she should claim.

 

Maybe if the negligent driver had been paying more attention and driving more carefully he wouldn't have run over an innocent mother and baby.

 

The only one responsible for a rise in their insurance is the incompetent driver.

 

so why shold she be claiming to pay for a holiday?

[Desperate Daniella]

She is not claiming for a holiday.

 

Bobbins has been incredibly reasonable. She has said she understands it was an accident. She is only hoping to be reimbursed for her actual losses and that seems fair enough to me.

[crem]

Hi.

 

I think you need to take a family break. To try to get past this.

 

Make the claim. It's straight forward and really should not be lengthy.

 

Summing up just the above you really deserve some restitution

 

DD I didn't say she was. If you go back to my original comment you will see it was aimed at other posters who were suggesting she should be claiming for such things as needing a holiday to recupperate from the stress.

 

It is these "add-on" elements that affect all our insurances not the genuine claim for her pushchair, taxi fares perhaps to get to medical treatment etc. These are all, of course, fully valid things to make a claim for. Making up a value to cover the cost of a family holiday to "help you get over it" isn't.

[Desperate Daniella]

I know you didn't say that in the first post. I thought for some reason you now thought she was.

 

I know these things go on, I wouldn't consider doing it myself, and Bobbins certainly doesn't want to make anything out of it.

 

What irritates me about insurance companies is they actually ask you if you have whiplash. At least my insurance company does. Why even make the suggestion? There are enough fraudulent claims for whiplash and I would bet that a number of people wouldn't even think about it until the insurance company gives them the idea. I was very surprised to be asked the question.

[2ltr16valve]

DD I didn't say she was. If you go back to my original comment you will see it was aimed at other posters who were suggesting she should be claiming for such things as needing a holiday to recupperate from the stress.

 

It is these "add-on" elements that affect all our insurances not the genuine claim for her pushchair, taxi fares perhaps to get to medical treatment etc. These are all, of course, fully valid things to make a claim for. Making up a value to cover the cost of a family holiday to "help you get over it" isn't.

 

 

An you will see that I suggest taking a holiday ! NOT claiming for one.

If your going to quote and take a dig at someone at Least do it in context !!

 

If the injuries party was paid for the "stress and anxiety" of the collision then they could use that towards a holiday or put it towards savings or whatever they please.

 

The reasons our insurance goes up year on year is because we HAVE to pay it so they charge what they want !! Legalised extortion.

[ericsbrother]

No skid marks? If the road surface was wet you wouldnt get any as the lack of friction wouldnt cause local heating of the tyres and road to leave them. I'm sure that there was no intention on the part of the driver but if he couldnt see because of glare then he shouldnt have been moving as it is patently not giving proper consideration to other road users. The police rarely want to prosecute in cases like this as without strong independent witness evidence they are troubled to prove the charge to criminal standards. However, you only need to show that by balance of probability that he was in the wrong, a much lower burden of proof so try a decent no-win no fee lawyer specialising in such matters. Not allowed to advertise any particular one in here but there are plenty of decent ones about.

[Ganymede]

so why shold she be claiming to pay for a holiday?

 

 

 

 

She's not claiming for a holiday. That wouldn't be allowed.

 

Another poster suggested she use her compensation monies for her injuries to pay for a holiday. The OP is entitled to do what she wants with any money she gets.

[Ganymede]

DD I didn't say she was. If you go back to my original comment you will see it was aimed at other posters who were suggesting she should be claiming for such things as needing a holiday to recupperate from the stress.

 

It is these "add-on" elements that affect all our insurances not the genuine claim for her pushchair, taxi fares perhaps to get to medical treatment etc. These are all, of course, fully valid things to make a claim for. Making up a value to cover the cost of a family holiday to "help you get over it" isn't.

 

 

 

 

You cannot claim for a holiday to recover. The other poster was merely suggesting putting her compensation towards the cost of a holiday.

 

Again, if drivers were not negligent and were more careful innocent people wouldn't be injured and insurance premiums wouldn't rise.

[dalifnei]

A lot of debate about claiming here. There's 2 separate issues:

 

1) liability. In a civil claim should a reasonable driver have slowed down? Sounds like it in the circumstances. Speeding is not the deciding factor, that's a criminal matter and is separate and not going anywhere here. Nice people who live in the same street do drive negligently, and it sounds like what has happened here. By the sounds of it, things could have been terribly worse.

 

2) whether to claim - certainly for the losses suffered. These do include reparation for the physical/mental harm. What the injured person chooses to do with it is up to them of course, to put it away for the child at a later date, to recuperate the best way possible etc.

 

At the end of the day it's down to the insurance company to pay.

 

There's something very wrong with this country where drivers are seen as innocent when battling on at 'normal' speed no matter what the road conditions, as if arriving quickly is more important than avoiding accidents!

[ericsbrother]

When you run over a pedestrian you are always in the wrong except on motorways,

as no motorist has a right of way over a pedestrian.

 

That is not to say the people dont do stupid things and step out in formt of moving vehicles without considering their actions

or everyone deserves prosecuting when they hit someone.

 

In this case I would have put a note through the persons door just asking for the money for the pushchair

if you really dont want the convoluted process of dealing with an insurer.

 

He probably would have been quite amenable to paying up and being grateful that it was the least of his worries.

 

I can tell you that your injuries will cost the insurer abound £5.5k compensation plus expenses based upon being hit by a van on the pavement last April.

 

The insurer will make their own decision about the risk of the driving of the motorist

and with the loss of any no-claims his insurace premium hike will be more than the cost of a pram.

[dalifnei]

Civil liability depends on wrongdoing, essentially acting below reasonable standards. That applies to both drivers and pedestrians. Having right of way is only a small part of the picture.

 

In terms of valuation, it very much depends on the particular injuries suffered by each person. 2 people being hit by a van can have wildly differing injuries and awards of compensation. This claim could be worth anything from nil up to who knows. Hopefully the child isnt harmed at all... unfortunately only time will tell

[porkyp1g]

I am not saying the driver wasn't in the wrong here, but can you really be prosecuted on the balance of probability? I thought police needed clear and concise evidence to prosecute. That is why you see so many criminals get away with crimes they have clearly done, but because there is no evidence they get let free on "lack of evidence".

[dalifnei]

I am not saying the driver wasn't in the wrong here, but can you really be prosecuted on the balance of probability? I thought police needed clear and concise evidence to prosecute. That is why you see so many criminals get away with crimes they have clearly done, but because there is no evidence they get let free on "lack of evidence".

 

You seem to be confusing criminal prosecution and civil claims here.

 

In a criminal matter, the police gather evidence, and the crown prosecutes. To secure a conviction there standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. The outcome is a penalty against the convicted - points, fines, maybe jail.

 

In a civil claim (ie recovering compensation), the claimant will be successful if they prove the liability and value of loss/injury on the balance of probability. The outcome is a payment of money by the wrongdoer (the driver... or his insurer) to the injured person.

 

You will not be prosecuted by the police on the balance of probability - you are right that the police need clear and concise evidence to prosecute, but that is a criminal matter and completely separate from a civil claim for damages.

[porkyp1g]

Ah I see that makes sense. Cheers.