Whos in the right here?

mathie

Ok Ive searched and mostly found the view that the pedestrian is in the right but heres yet another twist on the pedestrian on the road theory.

Mr. X is driving along and proceeds through a green light and a pedestrian runs out onto the road and even though mr. x slams brakes they hit pedestrian. Pedestrian is fine but dents car and does minor damage.

Now a taxi driver witness says that mr. x was not at fault and it was all the pedestrians fault and a Garda (didnt witness but going on description) says mr. x shouldnt have even slammed the brakes as that might have caused following traffic to crash(!).

So who should pay for this? The pedestrian says they wont.

M

Seth Brundle

Best advice is to get a solicitor on the case and pursue a civil action against the pedestrian.
The driver has a witness standing in their favour so should be fine - pedestrian will possibly cough up rather than go to court.

Was there a pedestrian crossing nearby?

Chalk

pedestrian should'nt have to pay.
would set a horrible precedent.

assume your child cycles in front of a car.
child didnt look, popped out between two parked cars onto the road.
hit by the car.
driver says he wasnt at fault, sues kids parents.

anytime a car is damaged by a ped id hazard a guess at who's going to be worse off.
I assume the car driver would pay.

seamus

The courts tend to err on the pedestrian's side, even when they're completely in the wrong, because the driver is insured, and the pedestrian tends to be seriously injured. But since he's not injured, I'd definitely talk to a solicitor about the wisdom of persuing a civil case against him.

kasintahan

The pedestrians soft human body did damage to a steel and aluminium car and you're worried about the vehicle?

prospect

Chalk wrote:

pedestrian should'nt have to pay.
would set a horrible precedent.

assume your child cycles in front of a car.
child didnt look, popped out between two parked cars onto the road.
hit by the car.
driver says he wasnt at fault, sues kids parents.

anytime a car is damaged by a ped id hazard a guess at who's going to be worse off.
I assume the car driver would pay.

Sorry, but that is the worst logic i have ever heard!
The person responsible 'SHOULD' have to pay, always. If that is a child, then their legal guardians assume responsability.

If i am driving and a child, (god forbid this ever happens), ends up damaging my car, why would I have to pay, I did nothing wrong!
Likewise, if i had a kid, who broke someones window playing football, I would pay for the damage, and accept responsability, as it should be.

mathie

kbannon wrote:

Best advice is to get a solicitor on the case and pursue a civil action against the pedestrian.
The driver has a witness standing in their favour so should be fine - pedestrian will possibly cough up rather than go to court.

Was there a pedestrian crossing nearby?

There were traffic lights nearby basically the pedestian (an adult) just ran out onto the road without looking. Driver did all they could to avoid hitting them.

mathie

kasintahan wrote:

The pedestrians soft human body did damage to a steel and aluminium car and you're worried about the vehicle?

First and foremost the pedestrian safety is the prime concern.

After that if its the pedestrians fault and the car is damaged its a question of who pays for that damage. Thats the big question.

Seth Brundle

mathie wrote:

There were traffic lights nearby basically the pedestian (an adult) just ran out onto the road without looking. Driver did all they could to avoid hitting them.

from a legal PoV don't confuse traffic lights with pedestrian lights. Were there lights there with a green/red man on them. Were they working? It is in fact illegal to cross the road within a certain distance [50m?] of them without using them.

DubTony

mathie wrote:

........taxi driver witness says that mr. x was not at fault and it was all the pedestrians fault and a Garda (didnt witness but going on description) says mr. x shouldnt have even slammed the brakes as that might have caused following traffic to crash(!).

The Garda says Mr. X shouldn't have slammed the brakes? :eek:
So, he just ploughs through the ped, and then what ....

As for who pays? Why, the insurance company pays, of course.

japjap

In my opinion you are both in the wrong. The pedestrian should not have run out in front of you, but you shouldn't have hit him either. Pedestrians (even when running) don't move very fast. You should be thankful you didn't hurt the pedestrian.

Were you driving with due care and attention? That's what they will ask in court.

mathie

kbannon wrote:

from a legal PoV don't confuse traffic lights with pedestrian lights. Were there lights there with a green/red man on them. Were they working? It is in fact illegal to cross the road within a certain distance [50m?] of them without using them.

I'll have to ask the person that was driving. This is a genuine story from a 'firends' PoV.

M

mathie

DubTony wrote:

As for who pays? Why, the insurance company pays, of course.

And loads the policy
M

mathie

japjap wrote:

In my opinion you are both in the wrong. The pedestrian should not have run out in front of you, but you shouldn't have hit him either. Pedestrians (even when running) don't move very fast.

So if someone kicks a ball through your window you're in the wrong too?

japjap wrote:

You should be thankful you didn't hurt the pedestrian.

As I said above this was the first consideration.

DubTony

prospect wrote:

Sorry, but that is the worst logic i have ever heard!
The person responsible 'SHOULD' have to pay, always. If that is a child, then their legal guardians assume responsability.

If i am driving and a child, (god forbid this ever happens), ends up damaging my car, why would I have to pay, I did nothing wrong!
Likewise, if i had a kid, who broke someones window playing football, I would pay for the damage, and accept responsability, as it should be.

The RTA gives the peds right of way in all situations. If you hit one, it's your fault. You may not be charged with dangerous or careless driving if it's obvious that the ped was at fault, but you won't be getting anything out of his bank account. While this doesn't excuse stupid pedestrain behaviour, they can only be charged with jaywalking, and cops aren't in the habit of charging people who are all broken up and bleeding ... and stuff.

Chalk

prospect wrote:

Sorry, but that is the worst logic i have ever heard!
The person responsible 'SHOULD' have to pay, always. If that is a child, then their legal guardians assume responsability.

If i am driving and a child, (god forbid this ever happens), ends up damaging my car, why would I have to pay, I did nothing wrong!
Likewise, if i had a kid, who broke someones window playing football, I would pay for the damage, and accept responsability, as it should be.

why is it bad logic?
cars vs person is slightly different to ball vs window.

im thinking that the car driver should have seen the pedestrian and stopped.
or the pedestrian should have seen the car and stopped.

seems as how no one saw anyone, except a 3rd party who could be unreliable, id say leave it as it is.
this gard who condones rolling over peds sounds slighty unbalanced and a second opinion might need to be taken.

as it stands its an accident and no one got hurt,
youd want to be some heartless person to get out of your car after hitting someone and ask them to pay for damage.

sure the guy might look fine, what about internal injuries, shock, delayed pain sue to adrenaline.

i dont see how in any upside down world you could see to argue against my point of a child not being responsible for being hit by a car, whether they looked or not.

perhaps my views are skewed slightly by an absolute hatred for compo cultire and all its problems, but opening up another avenue for people to sue each other is not something i would like to see happen

japjap

mathie wrote:

So if someone kicks a ball through your window you're in the wrong too?


You are if you hit him...

MrPudding

DubTony wrote:

The RTA gives the peds right of way in all situations. If you hit one, it's your fault. You may not be charged with dangerous or careless driving if it's obvious that the ped was at fault, but you won't be getting anything out of his bank account. While this doesn't excuse stupid pedestrain behaviour, they can only be charged with jaywalking, and cops aren't in the habit of charging people who are all broken up and bleeding ... and stuff.

I presume that whilst the cops may not prosecute them for a criminal offense you would be perfectly entitled to persue a civil action against them.

MrP

DubTony

MrPudding wrote:

I presume that whilst the cops may not prosecute them for a criminal offense you would be perfectly entitled to persue a civil action against them.

MrP

ah now! That's a whole other ball game. But can you imagine the scene in court? You turn up in a suit and shirt and tie and yer man arrives in a neck brace, plaster up to his hip, arm in a sling and a bandage on his head (bloodied - for effect).

"Yes judge. I'm suing this man for a broken headlight."

MrPudding

Chalk wrote:

why is it bad logic?
im thinking that the car driver should have seen the pedestrian and stopped.
or the pedestrian should have seen the car and stopped.

I had an experience in the North where a kid jumped out from between two parked cars on a skateboard.

It turned out he was playing chicken with his friends to see who would leave it the latest to try to cross the road. He lost.

Luckily he actually bounced off the side of the car and didn't go under it. He broke his arm and an couple of ribs. Are you saying that was my fault?

I took him to his house, when his mother opened the door I explained what happened. She grabbed him, by the broken arm :eek: and belted him accross the head. She then apologised to me and told me she was fed up with him being hit by cars.

I sought a legal opinion after I heard from the policeman involved that the parent were considering sueing me.

I had already spoken to several of their neighbours who confirmed that he was always getting hit by cars. The lawyer said that given what the neighbours and his own mother said I would be OK and could actually sue them for the damage to the car and the distress caused.

I decided only to sue if they proceeded with their action. They didn't and I didn't.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is you simply cannot say the driver is always at fault. Sometimes you just can't stop no matter how good you are.

MrP

whippet

a friend of my mother was hit by a child on a bike, there was a good bit of damage done to the passanger door of her MX5, the childs parents attempted to sue for damages and after a few years of legal argument it was settled out of court for £1250 for the damage to the door and the guts of £5000 costs.

Chalk

MrPudding wrote:

I suppose the point I am trying to make is you simply cannot say the driver is always at fault. Sometimes you just can't stop no matter how good you are.

MrP

im not saying the driver is always at fault,
im saying that unless you can prove that one of the parties saw the other, then each party became involved accidentally, an accident, which in the case of a pedestrian v a car, imo, for the car to be damaged is going to mean damge for the pedestrian.
so a undamaged pedestrian, unless hes wearing body armor isnt going to do any serious damage to your car.
if i hit someone id be thankful to have a dented bonnt instead of a dead body.

in your case, an extreme anecdotal case btw, ou could prove that the other party saw you coming and that it was not accidental on his part.
this means it wasnt an accident and hence you couldnt avoid it, as the other party set out to entrap you.
again comong back to compo culture as they tried to put in a claim agiant you, and if you disagree with my points so much i find it unusual that you didnt sue them?

in repsonse to sayiung you cant always stop no matter how good you are,
i cant possibly deny or argue that as its a statement of fact,
what i would say is that being in a 2 ton steel box that can travel at 100mph+ and can take 30 to 40 feet to stop depending on conditions, the weight of responsibilty rests heavier on us to be careful of our attitude and presence on the road.
thats why i think that overall, responsiblity should always be weighted towards cars.
i think it should be extremely difficult for a car owner to sue the pedestrian he collided with for damage to his car.
this , imo, is neccesary to protect the way we interact with other road users.

my main argument, as i stated orignally, would be that i would be wary of a precedent that this kind of action could set.

i hope this clears up some of my earlier posts.

a_ominous

As a cyclist, I had a ped walk out in front of me and I hit the brakes. I went over the handle bars and broke my wrist. The ped was attempting to walk across 7 lanes of traffic, 20 feet from a foot bridge (Palmerstown for anyone who knows it). He did the same thing a week later. I was sitting on the bus, arm in a cast and watched incredulously at the silly fecker.
Peds have a responsibility for themselves too. Can't solely blame a driver for an incident.
I remember seeing a sig one time along the lines, never try to make something idiot proof, because a better idiot will come along.

Since my incident, I've made my mind up not to be as agressive with the brakes in future. Unless the person is very old or very young. I'll keep the speed to about 15-20kmph in town, and about 30kmph on the road/bus lanes. If someone is irresponsible enough to walk in front of a large, moving mass, there are consequences. Simple matter of law of physics.

Our man in Havana

The problem is that if you sue a ped you may get a lovely 10k award in court but they are not insured and you would stand very little chance of getting money from a 12 year old kid or his council house parents.

BrianD

mathie wrote:

Now a taxi driver witness says that mr. x was not at fault and it was all the pedestrians fault and a Garda (didnt witness but going on description) says mr. x shouldnt have even slammed the brakes as that might have caused following traffic to crash(!).

So who should pay for this? The pedestrian says they wont.

M

No wonder the cops don't enforce the law as they don't even know it! The car behind would have course left adequate distance to brake should an unexpected event, like this, happen. Pedestrian is in the wrong but you'll have to sue him...is it worth it ?

30-6shooter

If the pedestrian walked out in front of you, its the pedestrians fault an accident arose. Fullstop!

If another car pulled out in front of you, and you hit it, its the other cars fault.

Its not the drivers fault he/she didnt stop in time because a knob pulled out in front of them.

If a bloke dameaged your car for the craic, would you let them away with it? No! So if the pedestrian damaged your car, and you cant claim off their insurance, because they havent any, then of course the pedestrian should pay for the damage they caused.

The simple way to solve this is if they wont pay you for the damage/dents however minor, they done to your motor, get a few of your mates and put a dent in their fookin heads. Or break their legs. But DONT DONT let them away with costing you money.

NUTLEY BOY

Motorists and pedestrians both have duties of care towards each other and all other road users.

Motorists tend to get the rougher end of these confrontations on the basis that they have a powerful machine in their custody and bear a higher degree of care.

However, pedestrians are not exempt from the law of negligence. If a pedestrian's negligence causes an accident they are certainly fair game to be sued.

Practically, it is difficult to sue a pedestrian if they have no insurance unless they are personally wealthy. However, most peoples contents insurance contains personal liability insurance covering them and the family residing with them. If you really want to have a go at a pedestrian as where you have worthwhile losses you simply send a suitably threatening solicitors letter to them and demand that it be referred to the household contents / personal liability insurers.

If the pedestrian is a house owner you can threaten to sue them and get a judgment mortgage that you will register against the title of their house. This means that they will have to pay you off first before they can sell their house.

As a pedal cyclist I find that pedestrians seem to have a death wish as they insist on walking straight out in front of you whilst talking on their mobile phones. Unfortunately, one of them will do it once too often in front of some unfortunate motorist just like the T.V ad.....

The best protection against these idiots is to anticipate that they will do the unthinkable............

Victor

Who hit who? Did the front of the car strike the pedestrian or did the pedestrian hit the side of the car?

What damage was done?

kbannon wrote:

It is in fact illegal to cross the road within a certain distance [50m?] of them without using them.

50 feet ~= 14m

I say insurance pays for it.

MorningStar

30-6shooter wrote:

If the pedestrian walked out in front of you, its the pedestrians fault an accident arose. Fullstop!

If another car pulled out in front of you, and you hit it, its the other cars fault.

Its not the drivers fault he/she didnt stop in time because a knob pulled out in front of them.

Actually it's not that simple. The car driver has to be travelling at the appropriate speed limit! As most drivers admit they go over the speed limit everyday and repeatedly it is highly unlikely they are innocent.
If you hit something else you are at fault. The pedestrian or other car driver ins't in control of the vehical. There can be degrees of responsibility you start with 100% for hitting something with yourcar. Assume everybody else is a danger on the road and you act fully repsonsible your own actions is how every driver is meant to drive. The pick and choose view of road rules is why there are accidents because people think the rules are wrong and do their own thing.

Jumpy

MorningStar wrote:

Actually it's not that simple. The car driver has to be travelling at the appropriate speed limit! As most drivers admit they go over the speed limit everyday and repeatedly it is highly unlikely they are innocent.
If you hit something else you are at fault. The pedestrian or other car driver ins't in control of the vehical. There can be degrees of responsibility you start with 100% for hitting something with yourcar. Assume everybody else is a danger on the road and you act fully repsonsible your own actions is how every driver is meant to drive. The pick and choose view of road rules is why there are accidents because people think the rules are wrong and do their own thing.

That makes very little sense and is hard to read... I cant make out what you are trying to say.

MorningStar

Jumpy wrote:

That makes very little sense and is hard to read... I cant make out what you are trying to say.

Read and repeat you may figure it out. It's not complex or that baddly spelt.

mike65

I think he's taking defensive driving to the "Ultimate Level". If someone steps out from behind a truck and you hit him, he, if not dead, might be able to argue that you, the driver was going too fast, not paying atention, was too close to the left side yadda yadda yadda.

Of course some of that might be true, but its also true some berk stepped out without looking.

Mike.