Court, insurance, just pay up? Hypothetically.

MarkAnthony

Hypothetically Cyclist A has a bit of an anger problem when presented with morons who pull out on him/her. Motorist B gives as good as he gets and Cyclist A loses the rag and rams the bike into the car door.

Cyclist A and Motorist B realise they're both being knob heads but cyclist A is the one that's done the damage and realises he/she should be paying for it but doesn't want to be fleeced.

Cyclist A is willing to pay anything reasonable to the main service dealer say up to €500 - nice car expensive hissy fit. But potentially it could be quite a bit more. What leverage has Cyclist A in insisting Motorist B obtains a quote not only from the main service dealer but also from a body shop used by the major insurance carriers. It would be my understanding main service dealers aren't usually down as someone insurance would deal with. Is cyclist A within their legal, if not moral rights to say they want a second opinion or put it through your insurance and let them deal with it (obviously pursuing Cyclist A).

Would the SmCC procedure or District Court look at the quantum of damage if liability was admitted by Cyclist A if parties decided that was the proper forum without involving insurance.

Would any form of insurance Cyclist A might have, home/motor be of any assistance to Cyclist Muppett - I mean A.

Extra credit: What criminal liability might Cyclist A be faced with?

30 Marks All Hypothetical.

athtrasna

Cyclist A did the damage, Cyclist A pays for the repair, has no choice in repair centre, he can request a number of quotes but if not going through insurance then Motorist B is under no compulsion to use repairer of cyclist's choice.

Motorist B would be foolish not to claim through his insurer, if he doesn't and Cyclist A then claims personal injury (no witnesses), Motorist B could be in trouble.

MarkAnthony

Hypothetically if motorist B and cyclist A get into that insurance back and forth cyclist A could say look, if you go through insurance you'll end up at a body shop they use, this is one they use, why don't we just play ball? - With no way to compel of course.

Am I right in thinking main service dealers aren't usually on the list for body work with insurers?

athtrasna

Think it depends on the age of the car.

I know a taxi driver who encountered cyclist rage. Unfortunately for cyclist, off duty Garda was in back of the taxi. That was a main dealer repair

slimjimmc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Extra credit: What criminal liability might Cyclist A be faced with?

Wouldn't there be a possibility of criminal damage to property?

MarkAnthony

slimjimmc wrote: »

Wouldn't there be a possibility of criminal damage to property?

I thought so - certainly for the purposes of academic discussion.

Claw Hammer

The offender can't insist on any partcular repairer being used. The repairing party can go to any repairer he likes and sue for the damage. The offender can try and defend by claiming the cost of the repair is excessive. He could make a payment into court of the amount he thought reasonable. Ultimately it would be for the court to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. The costs of trying to establish a repair was OTT would be quite high as expert witness evidence would be needed. There is a risk that the offender could have substantial costs added to the cost of the repairs. The repairing party could find that if he went OTT he could be landed with a bill for costs if there was a payment of a reasonable amount into court which he wouldn't accept.

hullaballoo

Mitigation.

NUTLEY BOY

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Hypothetically Cyclist A has a bit of an anger problem when presented with morons who pull out on him/her. Motorist B gives as good as he gets and Cyclist A loses the rag and rams the bike into the car door.

Cyclist A and Motorist B realise they're both being knob heads but cyclist A is the one that's done the damage and realises he/she should be paying for it but doesn't want to be fleeced.

Cyclist A is willing to pay anything reasonable to the main service dealer say up to €500 - nice car expensive hissy fit. But potentially it could be quite a bit more. What leverage has Cyclist A in insisting Motorist B obtains a quote not only from the main service dealer but also from a body shop used by the major insurance carriers. It would be my understanding main service dealers aren't usually down as someone insurance would deal with. Is cyclist A within their legal, if not moral rights to say they want a second opinion or put it through your insurance and let them deal with it (obviously pursuing Cyclist A).

Would the SmCC procedure or District Court look at the quantum of damage if liability was admitted by Cyclist A if parties decided that was the proper forum without involving insurance.

Would any form of insurance Cyclist A might have, home/motor be of any assistance to Cyclist Muppett - I mean A.

Extra credit: What criminal liability might Cyclist A be faced with?

30 Marks All Hypothetical.

Cyclist open to a charge of criminal damage - see Criminal Damage Act, 1991, S (2).

Cyclist open to a charge of disorderly conduct in public place - see Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 S (5).

Cyclist open to a charge of threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place (same Public Order Act S.(6.)).

The question does not indicate if there was a threat or offer of or actual violence violence to the person of the motorist so I take this point no further.

Unfortunately, there is no specific tort of being a knob head but this would safely fall within the tort of negligence as far as civil liability goes.

Cyclist has no right to insist or direct motorist to any specific garage. Plaintiff motorist is entitled to get one quote from wherever he likes and present that in court as evidence of the quantum of repairs. The judge decides the issue if there is a dispute on quantum.

BTW as this is a legal question any issue of morality has no chance of survival here .

Knob head can have the car inspected by a motor assessor who might negotiate a reduction in the cost of repairs.

AFAIK the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction over an issue like this. Looks like a straight District Court case.

It is possible that knob head has insurance covering his liability. He might have some specialist bicycle insurance with liability cover if he is a cycling enthusiast (as distinct from a cycling terrorist / terrorising cyclist).

Knob head might have public liability cover under his household insurance policy. More often than not you can ferret out some public liability cover from the contents section of a home insurance policy.

If knob head has no insurance in his own name and lives with his mammy he might be covered under her policy as a member of the family permanently residing with her.

If knob head has liability cover he better stop talking to the motorist as it is probably a breach of policy conditions to negotiate and or to make offers to the motorist.

Finally, if there is insurance cover knob head better not admit that the act was deliberate. Some insurance underwriters will not indemnify if the act was deliberate as distinct from accidental. I have had rows with insurance guys a few times over this type of thing and they can be really sticky.

P.S. I see that there are 30 marks on offer. Could I have biscuits instead please as I am starving.....

Pat Mustard

I would think that cyclist A should be less concerned about being fleeced with the cost of the door if other, more concerning issues linger in the background, such as the possibility of prosecution for criminal damage/public order etc. In the event of matters not settling and proceeding to civil action, there may be the possibility of having to pay all or a portion of legal costs.

Apart from the financial aspects, if one considers the time off work to consult solicitors and attend court, the cost of the door could be insignificant by comparison. Also, the consequences of a conviction can be problematic for employment and otherwise.

I think that the cost of repairing the door should be ascertained asap. If the cyclist can take a photo of the damage, not only might this be helpful if the dispute is not resolved but it might assist in arranging other quotes, for comparative purposes, if nothing else.

Dial Hard

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Am I right in thinking main service dealers aren't usually on the list for body work with insurers?

Nope, plenty of them are. Generally if a manufacturer has an approved body & paint programme and a given main dealer is in that programme, then an insurer will allow them to be used.

meathstevie

As per above, not a civil liability issue but a criminal matter.

Pat Mustard

meathstevie wrote: »

As per above, not a civil liability issue but a criminal matter.

It appears from the facts given that that both civil and criminal aspects are relevant.

meathstevie

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It appears from the facts given that that both civil and criminal aspects are relevant.

Where does the civil aspect come from ? There's no mention of a traffic accident but only of a deliberate act of damaging a third party's property.

Pat Mustard

meathstevie wrote: »

Where does the civil aspect come from ? There's no mention of a traffic accident but only of a deliberate act of damaging a third party's property.

The cyclist damaged the car door. That's how the civil aspect arises.

Are you really trying to argue that the cyclist would not be liable for the damage to the door in a civil action because the damage was done deliberately? That would make no sense.

MarkAnthony

meathstevie wrote: »

Where does the civil aspect come from ? There's no mention of a traffic accident but only of a deliberate act of damaging a third party's property.

Bear in mind criminal actions can and frequently do lead to civil actions. Sometimes one can be acquitted if a criminal action but still be found civilly liable due to the differing standards of evidence.

Anyone remember OJ? :pac:

The_Minister

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The cyclist damaged the car door. That's how the civil aspect arises.

Are you really trying to argue that the cyclist would not be liable for the damage to the door in a civil action because the damage was done deliberately? That would make no sense.

That would be great fun:

"Your Ladyship, I did not commit the tort of negligence, because I did it on purpose.

I'll have my costs in a paper bag please."