Creche and house property .Who is responsible of accidents?

nitpick man · 26-06-2018 11:36AM #1

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 · 26-06-2018 11:59AM

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 · 26-06-2018 12:21PM

splinter65 wrote:

If parents just parked with consideration and care for others and brought their child and belongings to the door of the crÃ¨che by the hand quickly, instead of behaving thoughtlessly and recklessly, expecting others to make allowances for them then these situations wouldnâ€™t arise. Like, why would you park behind someoneâ€™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 · 26-06-2018 01:18PM

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

nitpick man · 26-06-2018 02:24PM

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 · 26-06-2018 02:53PM

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 · 26-06-2018 02:58PM

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 · 26-06-2018 03:07PM

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 · 26-06-2018 03:12PM

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 · 26-06-2018 03:16PM

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 · 26-06-2018 03:39PM

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

nitpick man · 26-06-2018 03:44PM

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 · 26-06-2018 03:54PM

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 · 26-06-2018 07:02PM

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 · 26-06-2018 08:33PM

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 · 27-06-2018 01:29AM

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

Are you sure of this?

the_syco · 27-06-2018 02:46AM

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 · 27-06-2018 05:01AM

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 · 27-06-2018 07:14AM

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 · 27-06-2018 02:26PM

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 · 27-06-2018 02:29PM

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 · 27-06-2018 02:33PM

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 · 27-06-2018 02:35PM

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 · 27-06-2018 02:51PM

This post has been deleted.

27-06-2018 02:58PM

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 · 27-06-2018 03:02PM

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.

27-06-2018 03:12PM

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 · 27-06-2018 03:15PM

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 · 27-06-2018 03:23PM

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 · 27-06-2018 03:41PM

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 · 27-06-2018 04:23PM

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

Creche and house property .Who is responsible of accidents?

Comments