Motorist vs. Pedestrian accidents - always 100% motorists fault?

SeanW

Yesterday I was doing a driving lesson with a good instructor when some secondary school teenagers, I guess they were messing around on the footpath or something, and one of them just jumped right out in front of me!

Fortunately, I hit the brakes HARD as the instructor yelled "STOP" all within about half a second. But there was only about half a metre or less to spare!

But afterwards he told me that if the road had been wet, or for any other reason I couldn't stop in time, the accident would have been 100% my fault in legal terms and my insurance would have been taken to the cleaners, and I'd have been taken to court.

I also assume that the resulting driving convictions would - at very least - have prevented me from ever getting a decent insurance quote.

This reminds me of something that happened to my mother about 15-20 years ago when a child fell from a blind spot in front of her slow moving car.

Fortunately she too managed to stop in time, but she now suspects that it was a deliberate scam to clean our her insurance.

If it is the case that a motorist is always fully liable in the event of a pedestrian accident, then why?

I'm not saying that it's not a good rule in general, but not as an absolute because a motorist can't protect everyone and everything on the road from a Darwin award.

Borzoi

SeanW wrote: »

Yesterday I was doing a driving lesson with a good instructor when some secondary school teenagers, I guess they were messing around on the footpath or something, and one of them just jumped right out in front of me!

If it is the case that a motorist is always fully liable in the event of a pedestrian accident, then why?.

As a motorist you have the duty of care towards pedestrians, because you are in contrl of the instrument that can kill or maim. TBH the best thing to do is act like they're lemmings about to run under you car.

I'd fault you instructor here - teenagers (or any children) larking around near a road edge are an obvious danger - slow down and manouvre accordingly.

Tomas_V

SeanW wrote: »

If it is the case that a motorist is always fully liable in the event of a pedestrian accident, then why?

It's not necessarily a fact that the motorist is automatically liable. But, if you collide with someone and the force of your vehicle is what caused the damage/injury, then the onus is placed on you to prove you were taking due care and that the incident was not foreseeable.

So, you're at disadvantage & an insurance company is probably going to settle as the odds are against winning. Sometimes, though, the liability can be negotiated if there's evidence that the injured party was not behaving sensibly.

Driving any vehicle brings with it a big responsibility.

Stark

I've seen secondary school kids push other kids into traffic, no joke. If you see a bunch of eejits on the footpath, slow down and keep a bit of distance from them.

As far as I know, there have been situations where there were witnesses present and the pedestrian got some of the blame due to being an obvious idiot, but it's only ever been some of the blame.

Potential-Monke

Also, if you're drivng home in the wee hours of the morning, on a country road thats really windy, and next thing you run over the legs of someone who was drunk and fell asleep on the road at a bad bend dressed all in black and face down, you're also responsible!

Victor

A court will invariably side with the pedestrian as the motorist is the one with the danagerous vehicle and the consequent insurance.

That said, many people do reckless things like lying on the road, whether inebriated or playing.

Expect the unexpected, especially from children and drunk people.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

I've seen secondary school kids push other kids into traffic, no joke. If you see a bunch of eejits on the footpath, slow down and keep a bit of distance from them.

This happened to me. My da was taking me into school for one of my junior cert exams in 2000 and a young couple were having an argument. The girl then pushes her boyfriend onto the road in front of us! Luckily we stopped in time but it was really scary.

cazzy

My driving instructor told me to always assume someone standing on the path could be drunk and could wonder out in front of me at any time.

He was a bit loopy. Ever now and again he'd say now what can you see (At this point I would have to say stuff like a slow down sign, a woman pushing a pram, a man walking a dog etc and then he would say now tell me about those pedestrians and what state they could be in - I would then have to say the woman pushing the pram could be drunk, the man walking the dog could be drunk etc etc )

Needless to say I moved to a different instructor nearer my test as although he was a nice man he was a bit too quirky for me. (anyone quirkier than me is too quirky for me) He must think everyone in Dublin is an alcoholic,

Anyhow back to your original question I would think it is a bit unfair to always blame the motorist in an accident but I dont know how it works.

bk

cazzy wrote: »

He was a bit loopy. Ever now and again he'd say now what can you see (At this point I would have to say stuff like a slow down sign, a woman pushing a pram, a man walking a dog etc and then he would say now tell me about those pedestrians and what state they could be in - I would then have to say the woman pushing the pram could be drunk, the man walking the dog could be drunk etc etc )

This sounds like the sort of training spys and swat team guys receive!! Perhaps your instructor was ex G2 military intelligence guy

daymobrew

Stark wrote: »

As far as I know, there have been situations where there were witnesses present and the pedestrian got some of the blame due to being an obvious idiot, but it's only ever been some of the blame.

Recently a drunken idiot stood in the middle of the road to hail a bus. Bus hit him. Idiot awarded ~1.4 million euro but found to be ~60% at fault. :rolleyes:

A few years ago an idiot passed out on the train tracks. I think he lost a portion of his arm or leg. Earlier in the day he had been told to move off the tracks. Still got a bunch of money.

This is what you are up against. :mad:

Ham'nd'egger

daymobrew wrote: »

A few years ago an idiot passed out on the train tracks. I think he lost a portion of his arm or leg. Earlier in the day he had been told to move off the tracks. Still got a bunch of money.

I was only reading about this case 2 weeks ago.

It happened to a guy in his 20's who would regularly go drinking on the tracks around Tullamore. They had been shifted from the track before over the years and locals went to some effort to get onto the track (A fence erected to keep them off had been broken and they climbed down a steep embankment to access the track). On the day in question, he had drank a rake of cans and fell asleep on the track overnight. He woke up to hear the train horn (It blew at the point due to a sharp blind curve) but didn't move in time and had his leg hit, resulting in it having to be amputated. He was so drunk that he was unaware that he was injured. In the legal case, CIE was held just 20% liable for not securing their site as good as it ought to have, given that they knew of tresspassing in the past but they were absolved of other responsibilities in the case. At least with railways, there is tresspass and criminal laws to cover being on the track illegally; motorists don't have this protection.