cheese

pooky123

2vgvgvgvgv

Underscore

IANAL but my guess is that, assuming it was your child's fault, the buck will stop with you as the child's parent.

However, your statement that you are not insured may not be accurate: I checked with my house insurer (as I was going to take out separate 3rd party cover if not) and this type of incident would be covered under the public liability part of the policy, so it may be worth checking whatever home insurance you have to see if the same applies to you.

HTH,

_

jeremyrundle

Superficial, not to the car owner, had your or any other child damaged my car I would expect you to pay.

Oh and yes, as the child is under sixteen you are legally responsible, and if I were the car owner I would either expect you to pay or take the matter to the small claims court.

Had it been the other way round would you have let them off.

pooky123

jjjnjnjnj

jeremyrundle

The police are NOT solicitors, also we only hear one side, yours.

"Aint :evil: gonna happen now", from what you have said I am on the motorists side like it or not, this is why cyclists such as I have third party cover and public liability insurance.

jeremyrundle

pooky123 wrote:

my 11 year old some collided with a car last night, .

And YOU clearly stated YOUR son collided with a car forget the "Aint" speech and do the right thing, if you do not like the answers do not ask the questions.

It was "night" and "icy" roads and "cars parked on the pavement" all none of her fault if you were not in control of your child. At eleven all three of my sons were brought up to know how to behave outside of the house by me a single father.

merkin

If I were the car driver I would be far more concerned about the child than the car. Given your version of events I wouldn't pay either.
Jeremy, perhaps you need to read carefully what you write before clicking submit. While you may well be entitled to your opinion, the tone in which you write is perhaps too strong. You seem to be making the assumption that the child was misbehaving. What makes you assume this? Accidents do happen. :roll:

jeremyrundle

merkin wrote:

If I were the car driver I would be far more concerned about the child than the car. Given your version of events I wouldn't pay either.
Jeremy, perhaps you need to read carefully what you write before clicking submit. While you may well be entitled to your opinion, the tone in which you write is perhaps too strong. You seem to be making the assumption that the child was misbehaving. What makes you assume this? Accidents do happen. :roll:

She said her child collided with the car, what can you misinterprate. I did not assume I read what was written and replied to it. She/he did not say the car collided with the child, yes accidents happen, and did I say I was not concerned for the child, no, I simply did not go into raptures stating enything but what the law would see.

As for my tone, there has been worse said on this forum and I have never sworne unlike some.

Also the child has gone from "a few bruises, nothing serious" in the first post therefore not needing great concern to "multiple bruses and whiplash etc later!, perhaps I DO read what is written, only the story appears to change to suit.

Finally "a small dent in the car wing" would mean that the child hit the car unless the car was going sideways.

ooermissus

jeremyrundle wrote:

Also the child has gone from "a few bruises, nothing serious" in the first post therefore not needing great concern to "multiple bruses and whiplash etc later!, perhaps I DO read what is written, only the story appears to change to suit.

I had a head on collision a few years back and if I tell people about it, I am likely to say something like "I was lucky not to be hurt."

In fact I had whiplash that was excruciating for a few days and painful for a couple of weeks. So I was hurt, but, in a head-on, anything pales into insignificance if it's not death or serious injury.

I imagine the OP takes a very similar attitude when thinking about what happened to his son (and what could have happened).

Maybe he's giving a heavily distorted version of events (always possible on the internet), but you have no way of knowing that. I think you should stop playing armchair detective and back off.

Edit: By the way, the police are surely right to say that you don't have to pay anything to the driver. She should go to her insurance company and it'll be up to them to decide whether to settle the claim or to pursue damages from your son, pooky123. I'd bet they do the former.

merkin

Oh btw pooky, welcome to the forum and lets hope your son gets better soon.

jeremyrundle

ooermissus wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

I think you should stop playing armchair detective and back off.

Edit: By the way, the police are surely right to say that you don't have to pay anything to the driver. quote]

An interetsing concept, a forum where you can only reply provided your opinion is accepted by others.

And no the Police should not offer "LEGAL" advice, they are not legally trained in aspects of the law as solicitors are, say, litigation, and by doing so if the women follows their advice and is then sued by the driver will the mother then sue the police for incorrect advice.

Whilst I am VERY pleased to see a new member and hope her son is well, I do wonder if they will continue to remain or simply googled cycle advice and placed the one question hoping for an answer that suited their beliefs.

I will not post on this topic again.

Sorry.

jeremyrundle

posted twice in error.

pooky123

hhj nj nj j

motdoc

If your son has whiplash and she prevented your wife from getting medical attention quickly, offer to sue her for obstruction the treatment of her son. Whiplash (which is a mechanism not an injury) pain can occur if treatment i.e. analgesia is delayed.

PS If someones kid was hurt and damaged my car I would realise that my car is harder than a child so the child may be hurt. I would care more for the kid than the car as I'm not a retard. Can the driver prove the damage wasn't there before the child hit her?

tailwindhome

Who was to blame for the accident?

If your son was to blame then IMHO you are liabilty for the damage to the car, both legally and morally. You don't really give a lot of detail on how the accident happened, certainly not enough for anyone on here to decide who was to blame.

Compare this situation to if your son kicked a football and broke a neighbours window. You would be obliged to cover the reasonable costs to your neighbour.

If the woman is recovering costs from her insurance company then the next logical step is for the insurance company to attempt to recover costs from you. You may end up paying more than you would have by doing what I would consider to be the right thing. That said you don't have to accept the dealership quote.

This all changes if the driver was to blame, either fully or in part.

If your son was to blame, his injuries either minor or serious aren't really relevant to the apportioning of blame and recovery of costs.

Hope he gets well soon

"Chicks dig scars!"


BTW were the police called?

pooky123

b b bj nj nj

tailwindhome

Her attitude towards your son is irrelevant I'm afraid, digging your heels in may not be the best course of action here.

Also the age of criminal responsibilty is 10, again this is probably irrelevant as it's not a criminal matter


Who was to blame for the accident?

pooky123

b bhh hbj bjjb n

tailwindhome

pooky123 wrote:

No idea as i didnt witness the accident

Looking on the CAB website, which i should have done first really it states

"If you are under 18 you are liable for your own negligence and can be sued but your age would be taken into account when deciding whether or not the behaviour was negligent".

He wasnt neglegant or reckless in any way. He was just cycling to football practice

"A parent has a duty to take reasonable care to see that their child does not cause harm to others" and this dosnt apply to us as his bike was in good woking order, had a light on and again was not doing anything he shouldnt be doing

If you didn't witness the accident and don't know who was to blame how can you claim
he wasn't negligent or reckless in any way or wasn't doing anything he shoudln't be doing. Also your duty to take reasonable care would extend beyond the roadworthiness of the bike to how and where it was ridden.

Either your son was to blame and he/you are liable for the damage

The women was to blame and the damage is her own problem and it's up to the police to sort out the criminal matters (which they seem to have dropped) and you to sort out any claim for your son's injury.

Or the was blame on both sides and as the police have dropped the issue it becomes a negotiation with her insurance company.

baudman

Wensleydale?

tailwindhome

Odd but no matter.

Bye

garrynolan

Am I missing something here??

baudman

garrynolan wrote:

Am I missing something here??

It was originally a question regarding legality/liability with a child and a car colliding. A few opinions were stated. Seems the OP removed the posts, or perhaps was advised to?

garrynolan

baudman wrote:

garrynolan wrote:

Am I missing something here??

It was originally a question regarding legality/liability with a child and a car colliding. A few opinions were stated. Seems the OP removed the posts, or perhaps was advised to?

Read that so wondered what was going on.

n.battison

baudman wrote:

garrynolan wrote:

Am I missing something here??

It was originally a question regarding legality/liability with a child and a car colliding. A few opinions were stated. Seems the OP removed the posts, or perhaps was advised to?

Thanks for that, i was so confused.