Creche and house property .Who is responsible of accidents?

nitpick man

Hey all just wondering who would be responsible if there was to be an accident in a owners drive way.

I drop my little one to a creche in a neighbouring estate. The creche is part of an extention of a house which the drive way is shared . Essentially it's one drive way and the owner of the house parks their two cars there.

One morning as I was dropping my child off ..with other kids and parents .. I was near their drive way and I see the owner in the car reversing out of the drive. There was a child standing behind the car as he reversed roughly 3 meters awat . My wife ran over and banged on the back window to stop and pulling the child to the side.

It was frightening to say the least ..He clearly didn't look Nor did he give a Damn . Didn't even acknowledge it.

Fast forward a couple days . My wife was talking to owner of creche and who is owner the house also and in conversation my wife passed a remark about the incident of her husband nearly reversing on top of the child . She replied " my husband has to get to work. It's his drive way and it's very annoying when he gets blocked in by other cars ....it's the parents responsibility to drop the kids at the door ". I totally understand about dropping the child to the front door but her attitude was terrible about it.

There has to be some responsibility on her part or am I wrong . What happened if someone tripped in her drive way and say broke there arm. Is the house owner or creche have any liability

splinter65

If parents just parked with consideration and care for others and brought their child and belongings to the door of the crèche by the hand quickly, instead of behaving thoughtlessly and recklessly, expecting others to make allowances for them then these situations wouldn’t arise.
Like, why would you park behind someone’s car?Why would you leave your child wandering behind a moving car?

nitpick man

splinter65 wrote:

If parents just parked with consideration and care for others and brought their child and belongings to the door of the crèche by the hand quickly, instead of behaving thoughtlessly and recklessly, expecting others to make allowances for them then these situations wouldn’t arise. Like, why would you park behind someone’s car?Why would you leave your child wandering behind a moving car?

splinter65 wrote:

If parents just parked with consideration and care for others and brought their child and belongings to the door of the crèche by the hand quickly, instead of behaving thoughtlessly and recklessly, expecting others to make allowances for them then these situations wouldn’t arise. Like, why would you park behind someone’s car?Why would you leave your child wandering behind a moving car?

Not my child Nor has anyone parked a car behind his on this occasion.. I dont think you even read the thread correctly.

I gather then that from your opinion the person is at fault not the owner

Samuel T. Cogley

Forget about who's fault it is and move your child from an obviously poorly run business before something actually happens.

nitpick man

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

Forget about who's fault it is and move your child from an obviously poorly run business before something actually happens.

Seriously. Come on what's with you people .. cant ask simple questions without people jumping all over you..

splinter65

nitpick man wrote: »

Not my child Nor has anyone parked a car behind his on this occasion.. I dont think you even read the thread correctly.

I gather then that from your opinion the person is at fault not the owner

The crèche owner says her husband is sick of being blocked in his own driveway by people dropping kids off. You say this in the OP.

Call me Al

splinter65 wrote: »

The crèche owner says her husband is sick of being blocked in his own driveway by people dropping kids off. You say this in the OP.

He may well be sick of it, but what was said by the creche owner had nothing to do with the circumstances of what happened. The OP doesn't mention any car blocking him in. She describes a child standing behind the car ( we don't know whose) and the man reversing without taking proper care and attention.

Peregrinus

splinter65 wrote: »

The crèche owner says her husband is sick of being blocked in his own driveway by people dropping kids off.

By people dropping kids off to patronise the business that is run in premises that he (presumably) owns, or part-owns.

What kind of a world is it where you can't even run over your own customers? I tell ya, it's political correctness gone mad!

Samuel T. Cogley

nitpick man wrote: »

Seriously. Come on what's with you people .. cant ask simple questions without people jumping all over you..

What's with people not reading the charter and asking questions in the abstract?

splinter65

Call me Al wrote: »

He may well be sick of it, but what was said the creche owner had nothing to do with the circumstances of what happened. The OP doesn't mention any car blocking him in. She describes a child standing behind the car ( we don't know whose) and the man reversing without taking proper care and attention.

She replied " my husband has to get to work. It's his drive way and it's very annoying when he gets blocked in by other cars ....it's the parents responsibility to drop the kids at the door "
From the OP.

nitpick man

Splinter. You take it from here ... You take over my thread. Your welcome to it ..

nitpick man

Splinter you obvious didn't read the post correctly.. but you still hang on to the " car blocking the driveway". Never mind mind saying it was my child. I never said it was my child .. You don't hear me neddling you over that .. do you . Speaking of neddle ..get one and remove that splinter from your arse.

Del2005

nitpick man wrote: »

Hey all just wondering who would be responsible if there was to be an accident in a owners drive way.

I drop my little one to a creche in a neighbouring estate. The creche is part of an extention of a house which the drive way is shared . Essentially it's one drive way and the owner of the house parks their two cars there.

One morning as I was dropping my child off ..with other kids and parents .. I was near their drive way and I see the owner in the car reversing out of the drive. There was a child standing behind the car as he reversed roughly 3 meters awat . My wife ran over and banged on the back window to stop and pulling the child to the side.

It was frightening to say the least ..He clearly didn't look Nor did he give a Damn . Didn't even acknowledge it.

Fast forward a couple days . My wife was talking to owner of creche and who is owner the house also and in conversation my wife passed a remark about the incident of her husband nearly reversing on top of the child . She replied " my husband has to get to work. It's his drive way and it's very annoying when he gets blocked in by other cars ....it's the parents responsibility to drop the kids at the door ". I totally understand about dropping the child to the front door but her attitude was terrible about it.

There has to be some responsibility on her part or am I wrong . What happened if someone tripped in her drive way and say broke there arm. Is the house owner or creche have any liability

Wouldn't in be whoever caused the incident? If the person in the car hit the kid it will be his insurance, if a person falls over a dangerous item it's the person who owns the property the item is on. If you let your children run around where vehicles are moving it'll be the person who hits them but you shouldn't be letting your children unattended into a position where there's vehicle moving.

BTW I agree with the other poster the creche is badly run. The fact that the owner defended someone for reversing a car in an area with children without checking it was safe shows how much she cares for your child.

Call me Al

splinter65 wrote: »

She replied " my husband has to get to work. It's his drive way and it's very annoying when he gets blocked in by other cars ....it's the parents responsibility to drop the kids at the door "
From the OP.

That's what the creche owner said when approached. Not what was said by the OP. The OP doesn't mention seeing a car blocking in the car. Equally we don't know whose child was behind the car.

4ensic15

Del2005 wrote: »

Wouldn't in be whoever caused the incident? If the person in the car hit the kid it will be his insurance,[/U].

Insurance only covers the use of the property in public places, not on private land. He should not be reversing out on to the road in the first place.

Victor

4ensic15 wrote: »

Insurance only covers the use of the property in public places, not on private land.

Are you sure of this?

the_syco

nitpick man wrote: »

I see the owner in the car reversing out of the drive

Driving without due care and attention.
Not sure if reversing from minor to major road would apply here.

nitpick man wrote: »

The creche is part of an extention of a house which the drive way is shared

So is the driveway part of the businesses premise?

nitpick man wrote: »

He clearly didn't look Nor did he give a Damn . Didn't even acknowledge it.

He'd give a damn when his insurance went through the roof, and his wifes business folded.

Or perhaps he wouldn't care if her business folded.

nitpick man wrote: »

She replied " my husband has to get to work. It's his drive way and it's very annoying when he gets blocked in by other cars ....it's the parents responsibility to drop the kids at the door ". I totally understand about dropping the child to the front door but her attitude was terrible about it.

If you have to drop the children to the door, they should have an entrance to the business other than what is used by cars.

IMO, this is only the parts you can see regarding their care and attention to your childs safety. Fcuk knows what you don't see.

4ensic15

Victor wrote: »

Are you sure of this?

https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2014/09/22/slovenian_farm_accident_to_extend_scope_of_compulsory_motor_insurance

Del2005

4ensic15 wrote: »

https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2014/09/22/slovenian_farm_accident_to_extend_scope_of_compulsory_motor_insurance

That's for vehicles which are solely used off road and have never needed insurance, ie golf carts, racing cars, quarry loaders, but since a person was injured by one of them they now want all vehicles to have 3rd party insurance.

Insurance is needed for the driveways and as the driveway in the OP is part of a business then it's definitely not private property for insurance purposes.

BattleCorp

4ensic15 wrote: »

https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2014/09/22/slovenian_farm_accident_to_extend_scope_of_compulsory_motor_insurance

Del2005 wrote: »

That's for vehicles which are solely used off road and have never needed insurance, ie golf carts, racing cars, quarry loaders, but since a person was injured by one of them they now want all vehicles to have 3rd party insurance.

Insurance is needed for the driveways and as the driveway in the OP is part of a business then it's definitely not private property for insurance purposes.

Even if it was private property, the vehicle would certainly be covered under insurance for fire and theft. Surely it's logical to expect the insurance to cover personal injury/damage.

Claw Hammer

Road Traffic Act 1961
56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—


Compulsory insurance only applies in public places. they type of vehicle is irrelevant.

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Forget about who's fault it is and move your child from an obviously poorly run business before something actually happens.

Agree move crèche.

For a start the owner should reverse the cars in so adnit to be reversing out while toddlers are going into his wife’s business

BattleCorp

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Road Traffic Act 1961
56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—


Compulsory insurance only applies in public places. they type of vehicle is irrelevant.

You are correct, you only need compulsory insurance in public places.

But that doesn't mean that insurance that covers you in public places doesn't cover you on private property.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

nitpick man wrote:

One morning as I was dropping my child off ..with other kids and parents .. I was near their drive way and I see the owner in the car reversing out of the drive. There was a child standing behind the car as he reversed roughly 3 meters awat . My wife ran over and banged on the back window to stop and pulling the child to the side.

In that case the parents of the child, the child's guardian or whoever is supposed to be bringing the child to school is responsible for the child. You can't fob off bad parenting on someone else.

BattleCorp

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In that case the parents of the child, the child's guardian or whoever is supposed to be bringing the child to school is responsible for the child. You can't fob off bad parenting on someone else.

Not quite as simple as that. Try reversing over a kid and explaining that one in court.

Sleeper12

BattleCorp wrote:

Not quite as simple as that. Try reversing over a kid and explaining that one in court.

You do have a good defence that the parent wasn't holding his hand, child wasn't there when I got in the car & I looked in all three mirrors but couldn't see the toddler.

Judge can easily say that it's 50% the parents fault and cut any award in half.

Peregrinus

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are correct, you only need compulsory insurance in public places.

But that doesn't mean that insurance that covers you in public places doesn't cover you on private property.

But "public place" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive. A "public place" for motor insurance purposes doesn't have to be publicly-owned; it's enough that it's a place to which the public has access. "Public" here includes a section of the public, and a place is a "public place" if a section of the public has access to it, even if the access is by invitation, or in return for payment. So a supermarket car-park, for example, is a "public place" even though it's privately-owned, and even though there are signs up saying that it's only for the use of patrons of the supermarket. Similarly a car-park is a "public place" even though you have to pay to get in.

In this case, the man's home is also the premises on which a public business operates, and the patrons of that business would be a "section of the public" and, obviously, they have access to the premises for the purpose of patronising the business. So his driveway is part of a "public place" unless, possibly, it's fenced off so that people going to the creche can't get onto the driveway (which is clearly not the case here).

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

But "public place" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive. A "public place" for motor insurance purposes doesn't have to be publicly-owned; it's enough that it's a place to which the public has access. "Public" here includes a section of the public, and a place is a "public place" if a section of the public has access to it, even if the access is by invitation, or in return for payment. So a supermarket car-park, for example, is a "public place" even though it's privately-owned, and even though there are signs up saying that it's only for the use of patrons of the supermarket. Similarly a car-park is a "public place" even though you have to pay to get in.

In this case, the man's home is also the premises on which a public business operates, and the patrons of that business would be a "section of the public" and, obviously, they have access to the premises for the purpose of patronising the business. So his driveway is part of a "public place" unless, possibly, it's fenced off so that people going to the creche can't get onto the driveway (which is clearly not the case here).

Road traffic act.
“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;


Neither the public at large, nor the customers of the crash have access with vehicles to the driveway. It is a private place for the purpose of the Road traffic act. The customers of the crash can walk into the driveway but have no permission to drive into it. In a supermarket car park anybody can drive in. The car park is provided for that purpose. It is not the same in a private house.

Eggs For Dinner

The RTA applies to anywhere vehicles would have usual access. Any discussion on insurance is irrelevant as the existence or absence of an insurance policy never decided liability.

ganmo

If car insurance wouldn’t cover it would house insurance cover it? I’m guessing that the business insurance would only cover accidents after the handover has taken place

Eggs For Dinner

Household and Commercial Business public liability policies exclude losses from the use of self propelled vehicles in a RTA situation

And like I said, Insurance is different from liability

nitpick man

Thanks guys for your inputs and opinions .. some really useful knowledge here. The owners attitude towards the whole thing was wrong. I thought she would have some compassion over the whole incident ,but to total dismiss any liability is poor character on their behalf. In my opinion.

the_syco

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do have a good defence that the parent wasn't holding his hand, child wasn't there when I got in the car & I looked in all three mirrors but couldn't see the toddler.

The families lawyer will point out that you reversed out at a time that you knew there would be small children entering your property using that one entrance.

4ensic15

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do have a good defence that the parent wasn't holding his hand, child wasn't there when I got in the car & I looked in all three mirrors but couldn't see the toddler.

Judge can easily say that it's 50% the parents fault and cut any award in half.

A reversing driver does not have right of way. Hitting anyone or anything while reversing is 100% the drivers fault.

lawred2

the_syco wrote: »

Driving without due care and attention.
Not sure if reversing from minor to major road would apply here.


So is the driveway part of the businesses premise?


He'd give a damn when his insurance went through the roof, and his wifes business folded.

Or perhaps he wouldn't care if her business folded.


If you have to drop the children to the door, they should have an entrance to the business other than what is used by cars.

IMO, this is only the parts you can see regarding their care and attention to your childs safety. Fcuk knows what you don't see.

Never mind the fooken insurance, he'd have likely killed the child.

Del2005

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if it was private property, the vehicle would certainly be covered under insurance for fire and theft. Surely it's logical to expect the insurance to cover personal injury/damage.

Very few vehicles used off road would have no fire or theft insurance. A large company might have it but farmers and other small businesses won't be insuring a €100 machine for fire or theft. Also race cars or other modified vehicles would be impossible to insure as their value is up in the air.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Road traffic act.
“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;


Neither the public at large, nor the customers of the crash have access with vehicles to the driveway. It is a private place for the purpose of the Road traffic act. The customers of the crash can walk into the driveway but have no permission to drive into it. In a supermarket car park anybody can drive in. The car park is provided for that purpose. It is not the same in a private house.

Unless there's a gate blocking access to the driveway it's a public place and if you ran me over in your driveway I doubt that a claim will be rejected because there's open access to your driveway.

In the OPs case they have invited people to use the driveway to access the creche so the business will definitely make the driveway a public place.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless there's a gate blocking access to the driveway it's a public place and if you ran me over in your driveway I doubt that a claim will be rejected because there's open access to your driveway.

In the OPs case they have invited people to use the driveway to access the creche so the business will definitely make the driveway a public place.

As others have pointed out, this is relevant to the question of whether the driver is required to have liability insurance in relation to accidents that occur on his driveway, but it has no bearing on the question of whether he is liable in relation to an accident occurring on his driveway. That will be decided under ordinary principles of negligence, and will be wholly unaffected by the question of whether the driveway is a public place or not.

If you reverse your car into a small child, even in a place that's definitely not a public place, you are likely to be liable in negligence for any injury to the child.

lawred2

Response from that creche owner would have me seriously concerned as to how caring she is for the other children that manage to avoid the daily gauntlet that is the important lad reversing out of his driveway...

Claw Hammer

Del2005 wrote: »

Very few vehicles used off road would have no fire or theft insurance. A large company might have it but farmers and other small businesses won't be insuring a €100 machine for fire or theft. Also race cars or other modified vehicles would be impossible to insure as their value is up in the air.



Unless there's a gate blocking access to the driveway it's a public place and if you ran me over in your driveway I doubt that a claim will be rejected because there's open access to your driveway.

In the OPs case they have invited people to use the driveway to access the creche so the business will definitely make the driveway a public place.

Nobody can drive into an open driveway unless by invitation. Even if there is an invitation it has to be for vehicular access. It is in no way a public place. The fact that people are allowed walk up the driveway is irrelevant. The creche would have to have liability insurance for all incidents occurring on the premises. This most unlikely that any standard insurance policy would cover the driving model the car enters onto the public road outside.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Nobody can drive into an open driveway unless by invitation. Even if there is an invitation it has to be for vehicular access. It is in no way a public place. The fact that people are allowed walk up the driveway is irrelevant. The creche would have to have liability insurance for all incidents occurring on the premises. This most unlikely that any standard insurance policy would cover the driving model the car enters onto the public road outside.

Business liability policies exclude RTA incidents, there is no such thing as cover for all incidents and a driveway is a place where vehicles have usual access. This is an issue for the driver

Claw Hammer

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Business liability policies exclude RTA incidents, there is no such thing as cover for all incidents and a driveway is a place where vehicles have usual access. This is an issue for the driver

It is not an RTA incident as it was not on a public road. The only vehicles which have access are invited vehicles. Public place is defined in road traffic legislation and does not include the driveway of a private house. Most policies would exclude an accident when it is already covered by other insurance. It is less likely such an incident would be covered by the vehicle insurance than any other insurance.

hullaballoo

It seems to me that the only policy capable of covering an incident if it were to happen in the circumstances set out in this thread is the driver's insurance policy.

The assertion that because the RTAs only mandate that cars being driven in public places be insured is irrelevant as car insurance policies do not contain any reference to such a definition or purport to impose any restriction of liability on the basis of the locus of any incident arising from the use of or in connection with the insured's car.

As I've stated on this forum recently, there may be an argument between insurers about whether the public liability insurance would cover a claim in certain circumstances but ultimately, I think it's (a) likely that the PL insurance would exclude liability, probably to good effect, for incidents involving vehicles and (b) unlikely to ever be litigated as it's quite clear that motor insurance does cover such an incident.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

I haven't read the MIBI agreement in a long time but I would imagine so.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not an RTA incident as it was not on a public road. The only vehicles which have access are invited vehicles. Public place is defined in road traffic legislation and does not include the driveway of a private house. Most policies would exclude an accident when it is already covered by other insurance. It is less likely such an incident would be covered by the vehicle insurance than any other insurance.

So much wrong ther, but I'll leave you to it

Pkiernan

I wouldn't leave a child in the care of that creche.

It's amazing what some people will risk.

Driver of the car would be liable if he had reversed over the child.

4ensic15

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

MIBI AGreement 2009
14. Operation
This Agreement shall come into operation on the XXst day of January
2009 in respect of claims arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public
place on or after that date.

Darthvadar

This creche wouldn't be in the Dublin 24 area, would it?.

beertons

Is it a creche or a child minder?

CeilingFly

I'd see this as a health and safety issue and it is the crèche that is responsible.

If you have concerns, you can make an observation and have it checked out.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/childrenandfamilyservices/pre-school-services/pre-school-inspection-services/getadvice.html