Quick Liability Question

stevenmu

I had an unfortunate coming together with a bicycle courier this morning, most importantly no one was hurt, but the bicycle had a heavy metal container on the front that gouged a big line down the passenger door and front panel that I suspect won't be cheap to fix.

I was stationary in traffic, the courier was passing me on the left (he was in a cycle lane, I was stopped to the right of it). As he was passing me a pedestrian stepped off the path and clipped the bicycle pushing him into my car. Pedestrian and courier were unhurt, luckily enough.

I notified my insurance company (just in case), I can claim from them (have fully comp, no claims protected), they suggested I claim from the pedestrian, but I would have though that since the courier hit me that I should try to claim from him, and he should then pursue the pedestrian?

I know I really need to get some repair quotes before I do anything else, but just wondering if anyone here has experience of anything similar and how it was resolved?

coylemj

You'd be better off posting this in the legal forum.

stevenmu

Well I'm hoping it won't get to the point where legal advice is needed, for the moment I'm just wondering if anyone's has had a similar experience (or even has random unqualified opinions), though your point is well taken.

coylemj

Did you get the names of both the pedestrian and the cyclist?

stevenmu

Yep, I have names and contact details for both. It only occured to me after that the courier might actually have insurance, someone mentioned to me that they are supposed to, so I'll need to check up on that.

MarkR

I would try the cyclist route first. I assume they are part of a company or something, and presumably have some form of insurance for damage to other people's property.

CiniO

Come on guys.
Why would he want to claim from the courier? If it was as he described, than it was not couriers fault.
Even if courier had insurance, there's no chance that insurance would pay out to you, as this insurance coveres his liability to third parties. As he wasn't at fault, he has no liability.
You both (you and courier) should claim from pedestrian, as he was at fault (assuming what OP says is true).

PS. That's not legal advice.

Claim off the courier would be my thinking but I'd imagine your insurance company knows more than me about it :pac:
I reckon you'll get sfa off the pedestrain anyway.

coylemj

MarkR wrote: »

I would try the cyclist route first. I assume they are part of a company or something, and presumably have some form of insurance for damage to other people's property.

If it was a motor cycle then you'd definitely be going after his employer, not sure about a pedal cyclist and whether there is a implied liability on the part of the employer.

The thing is, the owner of the vehicle and potentially the employer are in the frame if you're looking to claim in the case of a mechanically propelled vehicle. The rules are probably different for a pedal cycle, that's why I suggested above that the legal eagles over on the Legal forum might provide a more definitive answer, you might even end up having to rely on Victorian legislation since you won't be claiming against anyone driving a mechanically propelled vehicle so the RTA 1961 may not apply in terms of liability. If you're going after the pedestrian the relevant legislation might be even older.

no1beemerfan

Gee tough luck op. Not something I've heard of before but thinking about it I'm not surprised. I can't offer any ideas as I'm not sure who you should claim from but hopefully you get it sorted.

knotknowbody

I would say claim of the courier's insurance then he and his insurance will in turn claim for damage to his bicycle and the money paid to you from the pedestrian, will be very difficult to get anything off the pedestrian as they would have to pay out of their own pocket, for this reason i would go after the courier's insurance.

While not entirely his fault, just like a motorist he should expect something like this in stationary/slow moving traffic and travel at a speed appropriate to the situation so you could argue he was also liable on that basis i suspect.

P.S That is my opinion and what i would do, it is not advice

CiniO

I don't get it.
Everyone seems to be advising to claim from the cyclist...

Please give me at least one reason for that, as he was not at fault.

Are you guys saying, that if I go for a cycle this afternoon, some pedestrian will step straight into my way causing me to crash into a car, I will be liable for damage? Nonsense.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

Come on guys.
Why would he want to claim from the courier? If it was as he described, than it was not couriers fault.
Even if courier had insurance, there's no chance that insurance would pay out to you, as this insurance coveres his liability to third parties. As he wasn't at fault, he has no liability.
You both (you and courier) should claim from pedestrian, as he was at fault (assuming what OP says is true).

PS. That's not legal advice.

It's a cyclist courier so they may not have insurance.

OP should claim from cyclist in the 1st instance, and cyclist should seek to recover from pedestrian.

It's the same logic as an end on end pile up. If you get hit from behind you sue whomever hit you, even though it wasn't their fault. They in turn sue whomever hit them...

You can't sue the guy who caused it, as he didn't impact your car.

stevenmu

knotknowbody wrote: »

While not entirely his fault, just like a motorist he should expect something like this in stationary/slow moving traffic and travel at a speed appropriate to the situation so you could argue he was also liable on that basis i suspect.

This is what I would have thought as well, just like a motorist I would think a cyclist should be prepared and able to stop without colliding with anything. I would think the cyclist could then pursue the pedestrian.


Btw, I'm not looking for, or taking any of this as legal advice. It's good to get the different opinions to help me think it through.

deandean

Compare the scenario of pedestrian-cyclist-car, to a scenario of car A - Car B - Car C.

If Car A pulls out in front of car B causing a collision, and car B hits into car C (the OP here), does C claim against B or claim against A?

Maybe someone has been in this situation before?

Henry Ford III

deandean wrote: »

Compare the scenario of pedestrian-cyclist-car, to a scenario of car A - Car B - Car C.

If Car A pulls out in front of car B causing a collision, and car B hits into car C (the OP here), does C claim against B or claim against A?

Maybe someone has been in this situation before?

Claim against car B, and car B then claims against car A.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Claim against car B, and car B then claims against car A.

That's something really new to me. And I'm really surpriced.
I always thought that if there is accident (no matter how many vehicles involved, crashed etc), so first thing is to find a person (or persons) liable for causing an accident, and then everyone who suffered a loss is entitled to claim from that person(s).

That's the only logical way I can think of.
And that's the way it works in other countries I was living in.

PS. Imagine a situation where car A is parked. Car B crashed into car A causing it to roll down and hit car C.
In this example car B caused a damage to car C. (car A crashed only to car .
But car B was parked. No one inside it.

Are you saying that even then, there is responsibility on car B driver?
Is it then responsibility on the person who parked the car there, or is it responsibility on the owner? What if there is no insurance for car B, as legally it's not required when car is not driven.

All this doesn't really make sense.
And situation seems to be analogical to example above.

Absurdum

Look, it's simple; car/cyclist/boat/aircraft hits you, that's who you go after, it's not your problem what caused them to hit you.

CiniO

Absurdum wrote: »

Look, it's simple; car/cyclist/boat/aircraft hits you, that's who you go after, it's not your problem what caused them to hit you.

I get it.
So in short words if I'm driving, and a pedestrian steps straight into my way just in front of me, It's better to run him over and kill him if there's no way to brake, instead of turning right to hit someone's fence, as otherwise I would be liable for damage caused to the fence.

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

I get it.
So in short words if I'm driving, and a pedestrian steps straight into my way just in front of me, It's better to run him over and kill him if there's no way to brake, instead of turning right to hit someone's fence, as otherwise I would be liable for damage caused to the fence.

Do whatever you can to avoid running over the pedestrian but any damage you do to anything you may well be liable for.

Absurdum

CiniO wrote: »

I get it.
So in short words if I'm driving, and a pedestrian steps straight into my way just in front of me, It's better to run him over and kill him if there's no way to brake, instead of turning right to hit someone's fence, as otherwise I would be liable for damage caused to the fence.

If you value your insurance over somebody's life, then I think you have issues :pac:

coylemj

CiniO wrote: »

I get it.
So in short words if I'm driving, and a pedestrian steps straight into my way just in front of me, It's better to run him over and kill him if there's no way to brake, instead of turning right to hit someone's fence, as otherwise I would be liable for damage caused to the fence.

As far as civil liability goes I believe the owner of the fence would have a claim against you and it would be up to you to pursue the pedestrian. In that case his only defence would be that you should have killed him rather than damage the other guy's fence so clearly he would have no defence.

The obvious problem is that getting money out of a pedestrian for something as trivial as a damaged garden fence would be well nigh impossible unless he had some all risks insurance which covered him for third party liability outside the home.

CiniO

Absurdum wrote: »

If you value your insurance over somebody's life, then I think you have issues :pac:

Of course I don't. It was just an example to show the whole nonsense of the situation.

The same with with OP's situation.
Cyclist probably did something to avoid pedestrian, and hit the OP's car.
If he didn't, pedestrian probably would be injured.
He did, pedestrian is fine, but cyclist will have a bill to pay for damage caused to OP's car.
That's definitely not right.

Big Nasty

Two cars are stopped at traffic lights, first is Car A, second is Car B. A third car, Car C approaches the junction and rear ends Car B, pushing it into Car A. The accident is Car C's fault however Car C did not hit Car A so Car A must claim from Car B who in turn must claim from Car C. Doesn't sound very fair as Car C's actions could end up with Car B loosing his NCB even though he did nothing wrong. However that's the way the system works.

Got it CiniO?

In relation to the OP's case the same applies. The pedestrian is at fault as he caused the accident but it was the cycle courier who in turn damaged your car so you must claim from him and if he wants he can then claim from the pedestrian.

-Corkie-

CiniO wrote: »

Of course I don't. It was just an example to show the whole nonsense of the situation.

The same with with OP's situation.
Cyclist probably did something to avoid pedestrian, and hit the OP's car.
If he didn't, pedestrian probably would be injured.
He did, pedestrian is fine, but cyclist will have a bill to pay for damage caused to OP's car.
That's definitely not right.

Maybe the pedestrian slipped of the foot path so OP should sue the path as in the council/cooperation.

CiniO

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Two cars are stopped at traffic lights, first is Car A, second is Car B. A third car, Car C approaches the junction and rear ends Car B, pushing it into Car A. The accident is Car C's fault however Car C did not hit Car A so Car A must claim from Car B who in turn must claim from Car C. Doesn't sound very fair as Car C's actions could end up with Car B loosing his NCB even though he did nothing wrong. However that's the way the system works.

Got it CiniO?

Yes I get it clearly.
It's just seems to be so unfair, that I can't believe that's the real way it works in Ireland.

In relation to the OP's case the same applies. The pedestrian is at fault as he caused the accident but it was the cycle courier who in turn damaged your car so you must claim from him and if he wants he can then claim from the pedestrian.

So OP can claim for damage to his car from cyclist.
And cyclist can claim from pedestrian for damage caused to his bike, and for compensation which he had to pay to OP for damaging his car.
?

coylemj

-Corkie- wrote: »

Maybe the pedestrian slipped of the foot path so OP should sue the path as in the council/cooperation.

Why, because the path moved without warning? Maybe it was the Japanese earthquake!

-Corkie-

coylemj wrote: »

Why, because the path moved without warning? Maybe it was the Japanese earthquake!

That was a tounge in cheek comment for Cinio because he would not believe anyone that the bike was at fault.:)

CiniO

-Corkie- wrote: »

That was a tounge in cheek comment for Cinio because he would not believe anyone that the bike was at fault.:)

I just wasn't aware of this.
I never said I don't believe in it.

But yes - I expressed my opinion several times here how strange it seems to be for me.


BTW.
Could anyone comment on my earlier question.
What happens when car A crashes into car B which is parked (no one in it). The impet of crash causes car B to move and crash into car C.
Who should the owner of car C claim from?

freighter

CiniO wrote: »

I just wasn't aware of this.
I never said I don't believe in it.

But yes - I expressed my opinion several times here how strange it seems to be for me.

I have seen your posts too and you nearly want the answer inscribed in stone before you believe anyone.

CiniO

freighter wrote: »

I have seen your posts too and you nearly want the answer inscribed in stone before you believe anyone.

I just like to be sure.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

I just wasn't aware of this.
I never said I don't believe in it.

But yes - I expressed my opinion several times here how strange it seems to be for me.


BTW.
Could anyone comment on my earlier question.
What happens when car A crashes into car B which is parked (no one in it). The impet of crash causes car B to move and crash into car C.
Who should the owner of car C claim from?

Car B, who then in turn claims for all losses from Car A I think.

p.s. Car B is parked on a public road, so should be insured.

knotknowbody

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Two cars are stopped at traffic lights, first is Car A, second is Car B. A third car, Car C approaches the junction and rear ends Car B, pushing it into Car A. The accident is Car C's fault however Car C did not hit Car A so Car A must claim from Car B who in turn must claim from Car C. Doesn't sound very fair as Car C's actions could end up with Car B loosing his NCB even though he did nothing wrong. However that's the way the system works.

As far as I'm aware in this case Car B's insurer will always protect his NCB and will forward the claim fully to Car C's insurer, as such they will not be out of pocket over the claim and will have no reason to penalise their customer by removing his NCB.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Car B, who then in turn claims for all losses from Car A I think.

p.s. Car B is parked on a public road, so should be insured.

Yes, but it's not the car who is claiming, and it's not the car you are claiming off...
The question was - who should the car C owner claim from?

From the owner of car B?
Or maybe the person who was last driving car B and parked it on this spot?

The same what if car B is not actually a car, but f.e a bicycle?
What if car A hit's parked bicycle, which then with the impet hit's car C.

Who then should the car C owner claim from?
The bicycle owner?
Considering the bicycle owner doesn't have insurance, he will have to pay out of his pocket, and then recover it from car A insurance. What if this person (bicycle owner) doesn't have such money to pay for damage for car C?
]

Yawns

Well that's how it goes! You claim off the car/bike that hit your car. They go and claim what hit them. Stop looking for diff answers to the same basic query.

YOU CLAIM OFF WHAT HITS YOUR CAR. They go claim what hit them. This is how it is in Ireland. Don't mind what they do in other countries, this is how we do it now today. If the bike owner has to pay out of his pocket then so be it, he can then claim all off insurance of car a etc etc.

Yawns

CiniO wrote: »

Yes, but it's not the car who is claiming, and it's not the car you are claiming off...
The question was - who should the car C owner claim from?

Well whoever drove the car there onto the public road had to be insured by law, so you would claim from the main policy holder of the car I would assume.