Suppose you're cycling and hit a pedestrian....

mikemac

....and were 100% in the wrong, what happens?
Like you were racing down a footpath and hit a pedrestrian from behind so totally your fault.

Thread inspired by this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58266033#post58266033\

Surely 95% of people could afford to pay to get some minor damage fixed hence no reason to get the insurance. Whereas if a motorist hit a pedestrian and was at fault, the injured party could be paralysed for life and need millions in compensation to have assistance care for the rest of their life.

I know there has been a lot of strong motorist and cyclist posts lately but I'm just asking from a legal aspect.
Suppose I'm a 14yo kid (I'm not), tearing down a footpath and hit a pedestrian and put him/her in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.
Care costs millions! Does our family lose everything?

Just interested to know from a legal perspective.
I can't believe it's not been before the Irish courts before, it's an everyday occurance
Well, not an everyday occurrence but a lot of muppetry goes on

johnnyskeleton

micmclo wrote: »

....and were 100% in the wrong, what happens?
Like you were racing down a footpath and hit a pedrestrian from behind so totally your fault.

Thread inspired by this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58266033#post58266033\

I know there has been a lot of strong motorist and cyclist posts lately but I'm just asking from a legal aspect.
Suppose I'm a 14yo kid (I'm not), tearing down a footpath and hit a pedestrian and put him/her in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.
Care costs millions! Does our family lose everything?

Just interested to know from a legal perspective.
I can't believe it's not been before the Irish courts before, it's an everyday occurance
Well, not an everyday occurrence but a lot of muppetry goes on

Well your standard RTA is based on ordinary negligence and breach of statutory duty, so if you negligently crashed into someone to whom you owed a duty of care and caused them injury, they are entitled to recover and could well get judgement against the person responsible.

The MIBI don't specifically say "motor vehicles" but rather uninsured vehicle etc, so maybe they would cover for the injuries.

I wonder how common it is though - even if it was a heavy set kid on a steel bike flying down a hill and crashing into a pensioner, I would still be surprised if that would put the pensioner in a wheelchair. But I can see how it would cause broken hips etc.

maidhc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well your standard RTA is based on ordinary negligence and breach of statutory duty, so if you negligently crashed into someone to whom you owed a duty of care and caused them injury, they are entitled to recover and could well get judgement against the person responsible.

The MIBI don't specifically say "motor vehicles" but rather uninsured vehicle etc, so maybe they would cover for the injuries.

I wonder how common it is though - even if it was a heavy set kid on a steel bike flying down a hill and crashing into a pensioner, I would still be surprised if that would put the pensioner in a wheelchair. But I can see how it would cause broken hips etc.

You can't claim from the MIBI if there is no requirment in the first place for insurance to be in place.

I think you are just down to plain old tort law. Not sure if suing a minor would achieve much. Vicarious liability for parents. Sounds like an interesting case to run, but not one I would be anxious for!

johnnyskeleton

maidhc wrote: »

You can't claim from the MIBI if there is no requirment in the first place for insurance to be in place.

I was suggesting it as more of a worth a punt option than anything else. I suppose an even more fundamental problem is that it is the MOTOR insurer's bureau.

maidhc wrote: »

I think you are just down to plain old tort law. Not sure if suing a minor would achieve much. Vicarious liability for parents. Sounds like an interesting case to run, but not one I would be anxious for!

Just make sure you avoid those pesky kids on the streets.

UrbanFox

In the scenario depicted you are fully liable, personally, as a tortfeasor. Specifically, you are liable in the tort of negligence and possibly a breach of statutory duty.

No MIBI considerations apply as there is no compulsion to insure a bicycle against third party laibilities.

Your potential liability would be covered by the public liability section of the contents insurance policy on your home. This usually provides personal liability insurance and should cover you.

If you are a 14 Y.O. then your family does not lose millions because they are not liable for your negligence either directly or vicariously just because you are a child.

Your Ma might be vicariously liable if you were actually doing something on her behalf at the time of the accident like going to the shops - qui facit per alium facit per se.

maidhc

UrbanFox wrote: »

qui facit per alium facit per se.

We need Woolf Reforms...

Victor

In demanding compulsory motor insurance, the Oireachtas (and the EU) were taking cognisance of the particular problems relating to motor vehicles. Motor vehicles due to their speed and mass cause particular safety problems, much more severe than that of human- or even animal-propelled vehicles.

I looked at teh statistics over a period of 5 years and found only two incidents where the was a fatal event between a cyclist and a pedestrian. I don't have details of the first, but in the second, it appears there was no actual contact between the cyclist and the victim, who stumbled, fell and died. In that time period, motor vehicles were involved in about 1,800 fatalities.

UrbanFox wrote: »

If you are a 14 Y.O. then your family does not lose millions because they are not liable for your negligence either directly or vicariously just because you are a child.

Would this read better if you said "... just because you are their child."

Comparison:

As an office junior, I was once running to deliver a package. As I was running along the footpath, a pedestrian immediately infront of me turn on her heel and went to cross the cross, causing me to collide with her, sending her flying, in a bowling pin-like fashion. What would my liability have been*? And that of my employer (who emphasised haste). What was her liability to me?

To my embassment, I picked her up dusted her down and "legged it".


* Statute of Limitations long expired.

Thoie

UrbanFox wrote: »

Your potential liability would be covered by the public liability section of the contents insurance policy on your home. This usually provides personal liability insurance and should cover you.

For years, as an adult, I had no contents insurance (was renting in a shared house, and it was PITA to get, so just didn't bother). I had no real assets (I presume normal stuff like clothes and shoes and books don't count). As there's no obligation on anyone to have contents insurance, what would be the situation there in terms of personal liability?

sportbilly

There was this case in England

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm

The pedestrian died so there was no issue of long term care but the cyclist was fined for dangerous cycling and avoided a manslaughter charge...civil claim pending...

UrbanFox

Originally Posted by UrbanFox

If you are a 14 Y.O. then your family does not lose millions because they are not liable for your negligence either directly or vicariously just because you are a child.

Would this read better if you said "... just because you are their child."

Yes Victor, that is what I meant to say !! Thanks.

To clarify, a parent is not liable for the tortious acts of their child on the basis of the existence of a parent/ child relationship. A parent might be vicariously liable for their childs tort in agency.