Legal's post collision

[garrilla]

last week my 15 y/o son rode into a moving car

I'm not exactly sure of the damage he caused but the driver has reported the incident to the police, presumably so she can get an incident number for her insurers.

Will the insurers pursue costs from my son (or me)?

Incidentally, the police sent my son a form to fill in, it requires his name and address and it has a tick list for his involvement in the collision:

• Driver
• Passenger
• Pedestrian
• Witness

No 'Cyclist' and no 'other'! Strange? What would you tick?

 

[Steve Austin]

The insurers will want all the money for the cost of the damage. which will be lots.

Now, if you were hit by a car and tried to claim against the cars insurer, they would say there were no witnesses, and unless the driver had admitted liability there would be no claim.
Has your son admitted liability, were there witnesses?

 

[Steve Austin]

The costs will be from your son, but as he has no money, it will be you

 

[garrilla]

The insurers will want all the money for the cost of the damage. which will be lots.

Now, if you were hit by a car and tried to claim against the cars insurer, they would say there were no witnesses, and unless the driver had admitted liability there would be no claim.
Has your son admitted liability, were there witnesses?

He has admitted liablility - he failed to stop as he came out of a side street, she was driving on it - and there were witnesses, some people on the stree and a couple of passengers in her car.

My big worry is that on top of the mechanicals, they will all now get whiplash etc.

 

[Alembicbassman]

When I did traffic law, the cyclist has no obligation to provide details.

Unless the driver takes out a civil action in negligence then he has to claim on his own car insurance for the damage to his vehicle.

There no point taking action against somebody who has no money.

The police can only issue a fine for any applicable offence, they can't award damages.

 

[Steve Austin]

Alembic you are right. but there are some very aggressive insurance companies out there who will take anyone to court rather than paying out money.
If he's admitted liability and there is likely to be a claim, i would be trying to talk to the driver asap, and see what she wants.

If you are a member of british cycling or CTC you get free legal advice and liability cover, which is worth the membership

 

[Bigtwin]

2 issues here - will they persue you, and are you liable.

To the first - probably if they can, just to see if they can get an easy recovery.

To the second - it depends. You are not automatically liable for all and any actions of your child. They would have to be found liable themselves, failure to take "reasonable care" or deliberate act. What is reasonable depends on the age and intellectual ability of the given child. Secondly, you would have to be found to have been negligent in your supervision and care of the child. Again, this depends on the circumstances.

Your son can't admit liability anyway - too young. So if they pursue, I'd get down to a CAB or solicitors for further advice. As for the form, just amened it by hand to make is accurate.

Generally, insurers don't pursue accidents involving children, they are treated as uninsured losses. Also check your own house insurance if you have it - you may have legal cover, and that can deal with it.

 

[marinyork]

I'd CTC it. The point about whiplash wouldn't be applicable if it were insurance company v insurance company but with no other side to argue with they might try and get away with it. Under normal circumstances an independent investigator would be prompted from the other company to go and investigate whiplash, say a bicycle couldn't cause whiplash, you are claiming fraudulently do you wish to withdraw it .

Btw I'd go round to the property and take photos of the car before they tamper with it.

 

[Crankarm]

I'm not sure that that the police have any obligation other than to exchange your details as it seems to be a civil matter. Your son wasn't injured was he?

Marinyork is right to suggest to try and get a look at the car to check the damage allegedly caused by your son. Even if your son appears not to have stopped at a junction and collided with the car the driver would be expected to have been driving with reasonable care. So if they did not see him or did not take evasive action then they might be partly to blame.

Any damage to your son's bike? If very little it is unlikley that he correspondingly caused a lot of damage to the car. Whiplash to the occupants of the car would seem fanciful.......

The insurer could well pursue you or the owner themselves could pursue you if their insurer cannot recover the cost of repairs from you. Which will then mean it will go down as the driver's fault and they will lose their NCD if not protected and their premium may rise steeply which the owner will not want.

The insurer will pursue you as the child's parent. As already suggested do you have any existing insurance policies that cover you and your family for 3rd party liability and legal costs? If you are a CTC or LCC member you will be covered by their third party insurance scheme? If so it might be time to use it unless you are able and want to settle the costs of repair to the car yourself. I would wait to see what happens. If you receive a letter of claim from an insurer or a letter and estimate for repairs from the driver then deal with it. Pass it to the CTC/LCC insurer who will take it on for you. After all the other party will be pursuing you for the cost of any repairs so wait to see what if anything happens. If nothing transpires don't worry, try to forget it and move on.

 

[Crankarm]

last week my 15 y/o son rode into a moving car

I'm not exactly sure of the damage he caused but the driver has reported the incident to the police, presumably so she can get an incident number for her insurers.

Will the insurers pursue costs from my son (or me)?



Incidentally, the police sent my son a form to fill in, it requires his name and address and it has a tick list for his involvement in the collision:

• Driver
• Passenger
• Pedestrian
• Witness

No 'Cyclist' and no 'other'! Strange? What would you tick?

Don't fill it in or return it as it is not an appropriate or suitable form for the incident. Surely they are aware of the circumstances. They're really not that bright. If they pursue you for it or become difficult point this out to them. I would take a copy of it for good measure .

 

[killiekosmos]

Why not visit the other party, ask if they have got quotes for repairs and just pay it?

 

[marinyork]

Why not visit the other party, ask if they have got quotes for repairs and just pay it?

Because without any evidence and purely on a superficial judgement it sounds like they are trying it on! Who is to say the damage is even above the minimum threshold they've agreed on to make a claim?

 

[Greenbank]

No 'Cyclist' and no 'other'! Strange? What would you tick?

Return the filled in form with none of the above ticked but write in something along the lines of "Other - Cyclist" next to it.

Ignoring the form will do nothing but annoy the Police.

If you're not already a member, join the CTC (both you and your son) and speak to their legal representatives. They will help people out who weren't members at the time of the incident, but you have to join up for them to represent you. 50 odd quid is a small price to pay for legal representation, especially when the firm they use (Russell Jones & Walker) are specialists in representing cyclists.

I'd never want *mandatory* third party insurance for cyclists, but I'm happy that I get it thanks to the CTC. It would make dealing with something like this considerably easier.

 

[Crankarm]

I'd never want *mandatory* third party insurance for cyclists, but I'm happy that I get it thanks to the CTC. It would make dealing with something like this considerably easier.

Sounds like you already have 3rd party insurance so compulsion would be for the remaining few who stubbornly refuse. You would I'm sure value it when faced with the prospect of being financially ruined by a claim.

 

[Greenbank]

Sounds like you already have 3rd party insurance so compulsion would be for the remaining few who stubbornly refuse. You would I'm sure value it when faced with the prospect of being financially ruined by a claim.

I meant that I'd never want it to be a mandatory requirement for cycling, like insurance is a mandatory requirement for driving (not that everyone bothers).