My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
quid.

The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
fully comp cover.

I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
she has stopped short of messing with contact.

She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.

What is the legal position on this?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:01:21 +0100, nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

>My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
>has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
>him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
>was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
>windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
>quid.
>
>The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
>is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
>fully comp cover.
>

She is sure to?


>I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
>bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
>she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>

I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

>She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
>can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
>and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
>anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
>would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
>What is the legal position on this?


Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
both ways in future. 
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Aug 16, 10:01 pm, nob...@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

If his mother has household insurance, that usually provides cover for
this sort of thing.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?


As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
that your son is liable.

Mogga  wrote

>She is sure to?

I based that on the current difficulty of getting any car valued over
£5k insured 3rd party only.

>I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

No. The police came along and took details. He seems fine and most
importantly had no head impact. I bet he will be sore as hell
tomorrow.

This was bound to happen sometime as he is really hot headed and
spends his day watching videos of bikers jumping off 100ft cliffs
(this is how offroad bikes are marketed these days) and he wants to do
that.

>Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
>both ways in future. 

He spends all his money on his bike. His laptop (in his backpack) is
smashed also. I hope he has learnt his lesson.

Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:

> 
> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

"He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."

> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
> that your son is liable.
> 

Fault -> cause damage -> liability

Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.

I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc

My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.

Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.

-- 
Regards,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
> 
> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
> 

We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the same 
way.



>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
>> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
>> that your son is liable.
>>
> 
> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
> 

Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
stop and hence hitting the child.

> Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
> although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.
> 
> I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
> is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
> to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
> training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
> advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc
> 
> My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
> motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
> not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
> without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.
> 
> Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
> circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
> but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.
> 

Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
they should be compensated.

Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:

> Periander wrote:
>> Nick  wrote in
>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>> 
>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>> 
>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>> 
> 
> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
> same way.

Why not?

>>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm
>>> not sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't
>>> assume that your son is liable.
>>>
>> 
>> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
>> 
> 
> Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
> stop and hence hitting the child.


I refer you back to ... He came out in front of a car which hit him, and
accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car was 
coming." 

....
> 
> Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
> crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
> they should be compensated.

Through neglect or recklessness someone damages your property and you do
not wish or expect to  compensated? I don't believe you. 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Nick  wrote in
>>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>>>
>>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>>>
>> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
>> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
>> same way.
> 
> Why not?
> 

It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It is 
the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts other 
road users at risk. It is the car's speed and weight that causes the 
damage in a collision. Hence it is the car driver who should have the 
major responsibility to avoid collisions with more vulnerable road users.

As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars 
when they are run over.

Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on 
the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no 
way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?

How is your son? While you and the ex argue the toss, do you consider if 
he might be a little shook up about this?

Your post is full of "I am" statements - how about caring for your son 
for a change.

-- 
Robbie

A little teaching is in order here:-

Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER 
admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody 
thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle 
insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your 
insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for 
the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.

Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers 
excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these 
problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her 
premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.

OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and 
it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you 
if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero 
liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no 
moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her 
thinking or argue any of the above.

Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no 
win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling 
of roses.


 wrote in message 
news:4ce9c31rg6dt1627imthnb76gg62gkjg3v@4ax.com...
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:01:21 +0100, nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

>My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
>has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
>him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
>was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
>windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
>quid.
>
>The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
>is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
>fully comp cover.
>

She is sure to?


>I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
>bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
>she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>

I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

>She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
>can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
>and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
>anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
>would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
>What is the legal position on this?


Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
both ways in future. 
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Aug 16, 10:01 pm, nob...@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

If his mother has household insurance, that usually provides cover for
this sort of thing.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?


As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
that your son is liable.

Mogga  wrote

>She is sure to?

I based that on the current difficulty of getting any car valued over
£5k insured 3rd party only.

>I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

No. The police came along and took details. He seems fine and most
importantly had no head impact. I bet he will be sore as hell
tomorrow.

This was bound to happen sometime as he is really hot headed and
spends his day watching videos of bikers jumping off 100ft cliffs
(this is how offroad bikes are marketed these days) and he wants to do
that.

>Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
>both ways in future. 

He spends all his money on his bike. His laptop (in his backpack) is
smashed also. I hope he has learnt his lesson.

Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:

> 
> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

"He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."

> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
> that your son is liable.
> 

Fault -> cause damage -> liability

Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.

I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc

My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.

Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.

-- 
Regards,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
> 
> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
> 

We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the same 
way.



>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
>> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
>> that your son is liable.
>>
> 
> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
> 

Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
stop and hence hitting the child.

> Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
> although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.
> 
> I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
> is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
> to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
> training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
> advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc
> 
> My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
> motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
> not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
> without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.
> 
> Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
> circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
> but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.
> 

Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
they should be compensated.

Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:

> Periander wrote:
>> Nick  wrote in
>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>> 
>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>> 
>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>> 
> 
> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
> same way.

Why not?

>>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm
>>> not sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't
>>> assume that your son is liable.
>>>
>> 
>> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
>> 
> 
> Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
> stop and hence hitting the child.


I refer you back to ... He came out in front of a car which hit him, and
accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car was 
coming." 

....
> 
> Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
> crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
> they should be compensated.

Through neglect or recklessness someone damages your property and you do
not wish or expect to  compensated? I don't believe you. 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Nick  wrote in
>>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>>>
>>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>>>
>> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
>> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
>> same way.
> 
> Why not?
> 

It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It is 
the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts other 
road users at risk. It is the car's speed and weight that causes the 
damage in a collision. Hence it is the car driver who should have the 
major responsibility to avoid collisions with more vulnerable road users.

As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars 
when they are run over.

Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on 
the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no 
way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?

How is your son? While you and the ex argue the toss, do you consider if 
he might be a little shook up about this?

Your post is full of "I am" statements - how about caring for your son 
for a change.

-- 
Robbie

A little teaching is in order here:-

Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER 
admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody 
thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle 
insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your 
insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for 
the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.

Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers 
excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these 
problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her 
premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.

OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and 
it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you 
if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero 
liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no 
moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her 
thinking or argue any of the above.

Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no 
win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling 
of roses.


 wrote in message 
news:4ce9c31rg6dt1627imthnb76gg62gkjg3v@4ax.com...
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

Nick wrote:
> 
> It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It is
> the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts other
> road users at risk.

Nonsense.  Who do you blame when two cyclist collide?  It it the person
or persons who are negligent who bring danger to a situation.

> It is the car's speed and weight that causes the
> damage in a collision.

More nonsense.  It is the total mass and impact speed of the two or more
objects which causes the damage.  If only one object were involved there
couldn't even be a collision regardless of its mass and speed.

> Hence it is the car driver who should have the
> major responsibility to avoid collisions with more vulnerable road users.
>
Everyone has a responsibility to avoid collisions with others.

> As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars
> when they are run over.
>
Wrong.  As more than a few have discovered - including one who forced
his way through a group of people waiting, by the roadside for me to
pass, and ran out right in front of me.

> Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on
> the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no
> way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

So, if the driver wasn't at fault you wouldn't hold them liable?  How
very generous of you.

-- 
Mike

Fletcher wrote:
> A little teaching is in order here:-
> 
> Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER 
> admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody 
> thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle 
> insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your 
> insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for 
> the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.
> 
Agreed.

> Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers 
> excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these 
> problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her 
> premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.
> 
Wrong.  The negligent party is liable.  Presuming the OP's son is at
fault (as he admits) then he (not the OP himself nor his ex-wife) is
liable for the total damage - both the driver's excess and what the
insurance company pays out.  This would include the cost of hiring a car
 whilst the damged car is being repaired.  It's quite likely the OP's
son will soon be receiving a letter of claim from the insurance company.

The mother's houldhold insurace *might* cover this (it's certainly worth
her checking) but might be negated the the OP's son's admission of fault.

> OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and 
> it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you 
> if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero 
> liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no 
> moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her 
> thinking or argue any of the above.
> 
> Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no 
> win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling 
> of roses.
>  
Possibly, but any claim is likely to be met with a counter-claim for the
damage to the vehicle.  Plus any injuries the driver might discover she
sustained.

-- 
Mike

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:01:21 +0100, nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

>My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
>has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
>him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
>was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
>windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
>quid.
>
>The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
>is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
>fully comp cover.
>

She is sure to?


>I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
>bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
>she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>

I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

>She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
>can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
>and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
>anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
>would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
>What is the legal position on this?


Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
both ways in future. 
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Aug 16, 10:01 pm, nob...@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

If his mother has household insurance, that usually provides cover for
this sort of thing.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?


As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
that your son is liable.

Mogga  wrote

>She is sure to?

I based that on the current difficulty of getting any car valued over
£5k insured 3rd party only.

>I'm glad your son isn't injured. Has he been checked out properly?

No. The police came along and took details. He seems fine and most
importantly had no head impact. I bet he will be sore as hell
tomorrow.

This was bound to happen sometime as he is really hot headed and
spends his day watching videos of bikers jumping off 100ft cliffs
(this is how offroad bikes are marketed these days) and he wants to do
that.

>Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
>both ways in future. 

He spends all his money on his bike. His laptop (in his backpack) is
smashed also. I hope he has learnt his lesson.

Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:

> 
> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.

"He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."

> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
> that your son is liable.
> 

Fault -> cause damage -> liability

Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.

I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc

My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.

Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.

-- 
Regards,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
> 
> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
> 

We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the same 
way.



>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm not 
>> sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't assume 
>> that your son is liable.
>>
> 
> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
> 

Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
stop and hence hitting the child.

> Which of course can be pursued through the courts if necessary - 
> although of course it is a bit of a bugger suing a kid.
> 
> I'm glad the lad's OK but anyway getting back to the OP then the answer 
> is No the OP doesn't have to shell out anything. He was in no position 
> to do anything to prevent the accident, ie unable to provide safety 
> training, unable to see his son out on to the road, unable to give 
> advice, clear bushes obstructing the view etc etc etc
> 
> My verdict is that Mum shells out, it's a bit unreasonable that a 
> motorist with a brand new car who has the wit to slow down sufficiently 
> not to significantly harm a person who has emerged in front of her 
> without warning to have to pay out for the damage caused.
> 
> Old git that I am, I’d expect any damage done to my car in similar 
> circumstances to be made good by the person at fault or his parent(s) 
> but I would be nice about it prior to reaching for the lawyers.
> 

Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
they should be compensated.

Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:

> Periander wrote:
>> Nick  wrote in
>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>> 
>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>> 
>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>> 
> 
> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
> same way.

Why not?

>>> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm
>>> not sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't
>>> assume that your son is liable.
>>>
>> 
>> Fault -> cause damage -> liability
>> 
> 
> Yes the damage was caused by the car driving too fast being unable to 
> stop and hence hitting the child.


I refer you back to ... He came out in front of a car which hit him, and
accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car was 
coming." 

....
> 
> Old git that I am I expect car drivers to drive carefully and avoid 
> crashing into kids. I certainly don't think that if they do hit a kid 
> they should be compensated.

Through neglect or recklessness someone damages your property and you do
not wish or expect to  compensated? I don't believe you. 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander wrote:
> Nick  wrote in news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:
> 
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Nick  wrote in
>>> news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net: 
>>>
>>>> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
>>> "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it was his 
>>> fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
>>>
>> We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars for 
>> their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see it the
>> same way.
> 
> Why not?
> 

It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It is 
the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts other 
road users at risk. It is the car's speed and weight that causes the 
damage in a collision. Hence it is the car driver who should have the 
major responsibility to avoid collisions with more vulnerable road users.

As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars 
when they are run over.

Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on 
the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no 
way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?

How is your son? While you and the ex argue the toss, do you consider if 
he might be a little shook up about this?

Your post is full of "I am" statements - how about caring for your son 
for a change.

-- 
Robbie

A little teaching is in order here:-

Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER 
admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody 
thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle 
insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your 
insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for 
the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.

Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers 
excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these 
problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her 
premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.

OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and 
it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you 
if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero 
liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no 
moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her 
thinking or argue any of the above.

Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no 
win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling 
of roses.


 wrote in message 
news:4ce9c31rg6dt1627imthnb76gg62gkjg3v@4ax.com...
> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
>
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
>
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
>
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>
> What is the legal position on this?

Nick wrote:
> 
> It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It is
> the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts other
> road users at risk.

Nonsense.  Who do you blame when two cyclist collide?  It it the person
or persons who are negligent who bring danger to a situation.

> It is the car's speed and weight that causes the
> damage in a collision.

More nonsense.  It is the total mass and impact speed of the two or more
objects which causes the damage.  If only one object were involved there
couldn't even be a collision regardless of its mass and speed.

> Hence it is the car driver who should have the
> major responsibility to avoid collisions with more vulnerable road users.
>
Everyone has a responsibility to avoid collisions with others.

> As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars
> when they are run over.
>
Wrong.  As more than a few have discovered - including one who forced
his way through a group of people waiting, by the roadside for me to
pass, and ran out right in front of me.

> Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on
> the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no
> way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

So, if the driver wasn't at fault you wouldn't hold them liable?  How
very generous of you.

-- 
Mike

Fletcher wrote:
> A little teaching is in order here:-
> 
> Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER 
> admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody 
> thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle 
> insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your 
> insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for 
> the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.
> 
Agreed.

> Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers 
> excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these 
> problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her 
> premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.
> 
Wrong.  The negligent party is liable.  Presuming the OP's son is at
fault (as he admits) then he (not the OP himself nor his ex-wife) is
liable for the total damage - both the driver's excess and what the
insurance company pays out.  This would include the cost of hiring a car
 whilst the damged car is being repaired.  It's quite likely the OP's
son will soon be receiving a letter of claim from the insurance company.

The mother's houldhold insurace *might* cover this (it's certainly worth
her checking) but might be negated the the OP's son's admission of fault.

> OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and 
> it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you 
> if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero 
> liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no 
> moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her 
> thinking or argue any of the above.
> 
> Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no 
> win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling 
> of roses.
>  
Possibly, but any claim is likely to be met with a counter-claim for the
damage to the vehicle.  Plus any injuries the driver might discover she
sustained.

-- 
Mike

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:10:59 +0100, Mogga
 wrote:
>
>Make your son pay it from his savings account. That'll make him look
>both ways in future. 

<AOL> I couldn't possibly agree more. Give thanks to the deity of your
choice that your lad is okay, and then tell him he'll have to get
himself washing your neighbours cars for a few months to pay it back.
Also _try_ to look from the car drivers perspective, who is quite
probably more than a little traumatised herself - the accident wasn't
her fault so why should she lose her accident-free record? </AOL>

nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

> My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
> him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
> was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but the car
> windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good few hundred
> quid.
> 
> The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess, which
> is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure to have
> fully comp cover.
> 
> I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> 
> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
> 
> What is the legal position on this?

She has sole custody its her problem 

--

Nick wrote:

> nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:
> > My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> > has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which
> > hit him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether
> > a car was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but
> > the car windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good
> > few hundred quid.
> > 
> > The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess,
> > which is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure
> > to have fully comp cover.
> > 
> > I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> > bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> > she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> > 
> > She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> > can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the
> > maintenance and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me
> > for 50% of anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these
> > past years I would not have bothered but as things are I am
> > sticking to the rules.
> > 
> > What is the legal position on this?
> 
> 
> As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
> 
> I don't believe pedestrians are liable when they are run over. I'm
> not sure what the status is with children on bikes but I wouldn't
> assume that your son is liable.

yes they are

--

"steve robinson" <steve@colevalleyinteriors.co.k> wrote

>> What is the legal position on this?
>
>She has sole custody its her problem 

That's what I thought; I just wondered if anybody has a reference.

I know, for example, that divorced people are not liable for their
former spouses' bankrupcies - AFTER the consent order has been
approved by the Court :)

My son is doing fine; thank you all for your suggestions. He's been
very lucky to get away with this.

Nick wrote:

> Periander wrote:
> >Nick  wrote in
> news:5ik232F3php33U1@mid.individual.net:
> > 
> > > Periander wrote:
> >>>Nick  wrote in
> > > > news:5ijtjcF3oqsn7U1@mid.individual.net:
> > > > > As the car hit you son I'm not sure there is any liability.
> > > > "He came out in front of a car which hit him, and accepts it
> > > > was his  fault since he didn't look whether a car was coming."
> > > > 
> > > We often teach kids that it is there responsibility to avoid cars
> > > for  their own safety. That does not mean that the law should see
> > > it the same way.
> > 
> > Why not?
> > 
> 
> It is the car driver who is bringing the danger to the situation. It
> is the car driver who is operating his machine in a way that puts
> other road users at risk. It is the car's speed and weight that
> causes the damage in a collision. Hence it is the car driver who
> should have the major responsibility to avoid collisions with more
> vulnerable road users.
> 
> As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to
> cars when they are run over.
> 
> Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability
> on the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really
> had no way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

No its the cyclist bringing the danger to the situation
it is the cycist operating machinery in a way that puts other road
users at risk

Its obvous from the op that the car driver was travelling at relitvly
low speeds otherwise the boy wuld be dead , as he walked away from the
accident the driver was probably travelling at less than 20 mph

Pedestrians are held liable if they are at fault however most insurance
companies dont bother chasing as most have little or no money to pay up
--

Fletcher wrote:

> A little teaching is in order here:-
> 
> Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you
> NEVER admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what
> you or anybody thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you
> have vehicle insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much
> so that your insurance can be null and void if you do admit
> liability. Liability is for the insurers and or lawyers and courts to
> decide.
> 
> Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the
> drivers excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to
> deal with these problems, excess is only an option that this driver
> chose to reduce her premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled
> and lost.
> 
> OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex
> and it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief
> she'll give you if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can
> decide but you have zero liability in law for any costs associated
> with this accident, you have no moral obligations its entirely up to
> you whether you go along with her thinking or argue any of the above.
> 
> Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing
> brief, a no win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out
> of this smelling of roses.
> 
> 
>  wrote in message
> news:4ce9c31rg6dt1627imthnb76gg62gkjg3v@4ax.com...
> > My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
> > has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which
> > hit him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether
> > a car was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninjured but
> > the car windscreen was smashed and other damage adds up to a good
> > few hundred quid.
> > 
> > The car owner was saying something about paying for her excess,
> > which is probably understandable. It was a new car and she is sure
> > to have fully comp cover.
> > 
> > I've been divorced about 8 years. My ex is a right bitter spiteful
> > bitch who rarely misses a chance to make my life unpleasant, though
> > she has stopped short of messing with contact.
> > 
> > She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> > can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the
> > maintenance and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me
> > for 50% of anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these
> > past years I would not have bothered but as things are I am
> > sticking to the rules.
> > 
> > What is the legal position on this? 

As the person who was neglegent the boy is responsible 

--

In message , Nick  
writes

>As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to 
>cars when they are run over.

They are rarely sued, because they are not insured. But in law, they are 
liable whenever they are the ones at fault.

>
>Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on 
>the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had 
>no way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

Which appears to be the case here, since the son has admitted as much.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Fletcher 
 writes
>A little teaching is in order here:-
>
>Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you NEVER
>admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what you or anybody
>thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if you have vehicle
>insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so much so that your
>insurance can be null and void if you do admit liability. Liability is for
>the insurers and or lawyers and courts to decide.

That is sensible advice.

>
>Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the drivers
>excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to deal with these
>problems, excess is only an option that this driver chose to reduce her
>premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled and lost.

Whatever one might think about the moral position, that is a false 
statement of the law.

If your son was negligent and the driver was not, he is legally liable 
for all the damage, not just the excess. The fact that he is a cyclist, 
the fact that he is uninsured, the fact that he is a child are all 
irrelevant.

>
>OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your ex and
>it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief she'll give you
>if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can decide but you have zero
>liability in law for any costs associated with this accident, you have no
>moral obligations its entirely up to you whether you go along with her
>thinking or argue any of the above.

I agree about the legal position.

>
>Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing brief, a no
>win no fee mob and you might find your son could come out of this smelling
>of roses.
>

It is unlikely that any lawyer would touch this with a bargepole, and 
certainly not on a no win no fee basis when there is virtually no chance 
of recovering damages.
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:

> In message , Fletcher
>  writes
> > A little teaching is in order here:-
> > 
> > Tell your son the number one rule in vehicle accidents is that you
> > NEVER admit liability, no matter how it appears, is, looks or what
> > you or anybody thinks, you never ever admit liability. In fact if
> > you have vehicle insurance its often stipulated in the agreement so
> > much so that your insurance can be null and void if you do admit
> > liability. Liability is for the insurers and or lawyers and courts
> > to decide.
> 
> That is sensible advice.
> 
> > 
> > Next point, your son has no responsibility what so ever for the
> > drivers excess, not in law and not morally. Insurance is there to
> > deal with these problems, excess is only an option that this driver
> > chose to reduce her premium. Its a case of tough shit, she gambled
> > and lost.
> 
> Whatever one might think about the moral position, that is a false
> statement of the law.
> 
> If your son was negligent and the driver was not, he is legally
> liable for all the damage, not just the excess. The fact that he is a
> cyclist, the fact that he is uninsured, the fact that he is a child
> are all irrelevant.
> 
> > 
> > OK your problem is not with the driver or your son, it's with your
> > ex and it's a case of how she want's to play it and how much grief
> > she'll give you if you don't go along with her plans. Only you can
> > decide but you have zero liability in law for any costs associated
> > with this accident, you have no moral obligations its entirely up
> > to you whether you go along with her thinking or argue any of the
> > above.
> 
> I agree about the legal position.
> 
> > 
> > Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing
> > brief, a no win no fee mob and you might find your son could come
> > out of this smelling of roses.
> > 
> 
> It is unlikely that any lawyer would touch this with a bargepole, and
> certainly not on a no win no fee basis when there is virtually no
> chance of recovering damages.

Also a high probablity that the child would be saddled with a rather
large counterclaim off the drivers insurance

--

"Richard Miller"  wrote in message 
news:zTtAtRBKqUxGFwsS@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Nick  
> writes
>
>>As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to cars 
>>when they are run over.
>
> They are rarely sued, because they are not insured. But in law, they are 
> liable whenever they are the ones at fault.

Agreed.  Pedestrians and cyclists most certainly can be liable if they cause 
road accidents.  For that matter, if someone carelessly collides with you 
while you are both walking on the pavement and you fall over and sustain 
injury, you could sue him for damages. The only reasons not to do so would 
be if the damage is minor, or if the other party has no money.

As someone else has sensibly said, though, the mother may well have a 
household insurance policy (contents) which covers the liability of members 
of the household whilst cycling. No harm in checking the policy wording.

>
>>
>>Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability on 
>>the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really had no 
>>way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.

That actually sounds like a real-life European Community directive. I think 
I read it somewhere. It isn't law here yet, though.

"The Todal"  wrote:

>As someone else has sensibly said, though, the mother may well have a 
>household insurance policy (contents) which covers the liability of members 
>of the household whilst cycling. No harm in checking the policy wording.

She says she doesn't have a Contents policy and she only has a
Buildings policy. IIRC the public liability cover comes only with a
CP, but obviously I don't know what insurance she actually has. I do
know from past history that now she would try it on with me if she
can.

Also, I have noticed that the public liability cover in these policies
is being restricted to events in connection with the property, i.e.
the policyholder is not covered for stuff that happens away from the
house.

The car driver is going to lose not only her immediate excess but also
her NCD and it is several years before the NCD is fully restored. The
cost of that easily runs into thousands even for an adult with a long
clean record, which is why it is IMHO rarely worth claiming off one's
own fully comp cover unless the vehicle is a total writeoff *and* is
expensive. I imagine she could go for a recovery of that.

In message , steve 
robinson <steve@colevalleyinteriors.co.k> writes
>>
>> She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
>> can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the maintenance
>> and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after me for 50% of
>> anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable these past years I
>> would not have bothered but as things are I am sticking to the rules.
>>
>> What is the legal position on this?
>
>She has sole custody its her problem
>

No it isn't.

The legal position is that the boy is at fault, and he is liable.

The parents are not legally liable at all.

Morally, since they both have parental responsibility, they are equally 
liable in my view.

Unless you are claiming that the father actually has nothing whatsoever 
to do with the son and his upbringing.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:21:40 +0100, nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

>
> "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>>As someone else has sensibly said, though, the mother may well have a 
>>household insurance policy (contents) which covers the liability of members 
>>of the household whilst cycling. No harm in checking the policy wording.
>
>She says she doesn't have a Contents policy and she only has a
>Buildings policy. IIRC the public liability cover comes only with a
>CP, but obviously I don't know what insurance she actually has. I do
>know from past history that now she would try it on with me if she
>can.
>
>Also, I have noticed that the public liability cover in these policies
>is being restricted to events in connection with the property, i.e.
>the policyholder is not covered for stuff that happens away from the
>house.
>
>The car driver is going to lose not only her immediate excess but also
>her NCD and it is several years before the NCD is fully restored. The
>cost of that easily runs into thousands even for an adult with a long
>clean record, which is why it is IMHO rarely worth claiming off one's
>own fully comp cover unless the vehicle is a total writeoff *and* is
>expensive. I imagine she could go for a recovery of that.

Well back to your son paying for the damage. It'll be a good lesson
for him and might save his life if he decides to look before leaping
on his bike.

You do seem very concerned about this woman losing out. Bear in mind
if your son had been in hopsital you would have felt very very
different about the situation.

Your son might have slipped out between parked cars but he's a kid.
Adult car drivers should try and look out for unexpected children
flying out on the road - has the accident been reported to the police?
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Richard Miller wrote:

> In message , steve
> robinson <steve@colevalleyinteriors.co.k> writes
> > > 
> > > She is now demanding that I pay 50% of everything. I told her she
> > > can't have it both ways: have sole custody so she gets the
> > > maintenance and her mortgage paid, etc, and then also come after
> > > me for 50% of anything unexpected. Had she been more reasonable
> > > these past years I would not have bothered but as things are I am
> > > sticking to the rules.
> > > 
> > > What is the legal position on this?
> > 
> > She has sole custody its her problem
> > 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> The legal position is that the boy is at fault, and he is liable.
> 
> The parents are not legally liable at all.
> 
> Morally, since they both have parental responsibility, they are
> equally liable in my view.
> 
> Unless you are claiming that the father actually has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the son and his upbringing.

As the mother has sole custody surely she is the only one with parental
responsiblity

--

wrote in message 
news:jrpac39jvci9vr3rcg048pd8j90ksu779e@4ax.com...
>
> "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>>As someone else has sensibly said, though, the mother may well have a
>>household insurance policy (contents) which covers the liability of 
>>members
>>of the household whilst cycling. No harm in checking the policy wording.
>
> She says she doesn't have a Contents policy and she only has a
> Buildings policy. IIRC the public liability cover comes only with a
> CP, but obviously I don't know what insurance she actually has. I do
> know from past history that now she would try it on with me if she
> can.
>
> Also, I have noticed that the public liability cover in these policies
> is being restricted to events in connection with the property, i.e.
> the policyholder is not covered for stuff that happens away from the
> house.

I think that's certainly true under buildings insurance. Contents insurance 
can be more wide-ranging and might also have covered the accidental damage 
to the laptop.

>
> The car driver is going to lose not only her immediate excess but also
> her NCD and it is several years before the NCD is fully restored. The
> cost of that easily runs into thousands even for an adult with a long
> clean record, which is why it is IMHO rarely worth claiming off one's
> own fully comp cover unless the vehicle is a total writeoff *and* is
> expensive. I imagine she could go for a recovery of that.

She cannot successfully sue the parents for reimbursement.  She could sue 
the boy. He would probably be liable but the standard of care expected from 
him would be that of a child of his age.

I suppose if I were her lawyer, though, I'd try arguing that if the child 
was cycling without having undertaken what used to be called a "cycling 
proficiency course" (do they still exist?) it is the parents fault for 
letting him use his bike whilst not competent to do so. There is a chance 
that such an argument could work in front of a sympathetic district judge.

In your position I suppose I'd pay a fair sum to the car driver (just to be 
neighbourly and avoid making enemies) and then require the boy to do lots of 
chores to pay me back.

"Mogga"  wrote in message 
news:b7qac3h6bh3id6o5e0jqq7nmp5a1ssebn1@4ax.com...
>
> Your son might have slipped out between parked cars but he's a kid.
> Adult car drivers should try and look out for unexpected children
> flying out on the road - has the accident been reported to the police?

Very good point, actually. Your 14 year old son might readily accept that it 
was his fault but he's only a kid and really the question is whether the 
motorist could have seen that there was a kid on a bike ahead of her, and 
whether she should have taken the precaution of slowing down to a crawl. 
That could be arguable.

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Nick  
> writes
> 
>> As I said I don't believe pedestrians are held liable for damage to 
>> cars when they are run over.
> 
> They are rarely sued, because they are not insured. 

I'm not sure that follows. A great many pedestrians would have adequate 
private capital to cover damages awarded against them. I think they 
don't sue because they would have trouble winning.

It would be interesting to see cases of a pedestrian being found liable 
for damage to a car that hit them.

> But in law, they are 
> liable whenever they are the ones at fault.
> 

How would fault be defined. Pedestrians have the right to cross roads, 
car drivers have a duty to avoid hitting them.


>>
>> Personally I would like to see an automatic presumption of liability 
>> on the part of the car driver unless they can prove that they really 
>> had no way of anticipating or avoiding the collision.
> 
> Which appears to be the case here, since the son has admitted as much.

No as I said before people tend to drill kids that it is their 
responsibility to avoid being hit by cars. Many kids would say it was 
their fault if the were hit after running out on to a zebra crossing.

It is often possible for a car driver to see kids playing near a road, 
on bikes or otherwise. As a prudent driver I adjust my speed in 
anticipation of the kids behaving erratically. However a great many 
drivers in the UK do not do so as they feel their right to drive at 35 
mph in a residential road supersedes the child's right to move around 
their own neighbourhood safely.

In this particular instance I do not know how fast the car driver was 
travelling or how much time they had to anticipate and react.

Obviously I would like automatic driver liability as was proposed by the 
  EU in 2002 as I believe this would encourage motorists to drive more 
safely and would make a safer environment for our children to play 
outside. I realise that others favour motorists rights to travel at high 
speeds regardless of potential erratic behaviour from pedestrians and 
would prefer to see children kept in doors away from harms way.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:33:56 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

> In your position I suppose I'd pay a fair sum to the car driver (just to be 
> neighbourly and avoid making enemies) and then require the boy to do lots of 
> chores to pay me back. 

In OP's position of the non-custodial parent?

Tony

"The Todal"  wrote:

> Your son might have slipped out between parked cars but he's a kid.
>> Adult car drivers should try and look out for unexpected children
>> flying out on the road - has the accident been reported to the police?
>
>Very good point, actually. Your 14 year old son might readily accept that it 
>was his fault but he's only a kid and really the question is whether the 
>motorist could have seen that there was a kid on a bike ahead of her, and 
>whether she should have taken the precaution of slowing down to a crawl. 
>That could be arguable. 

Yes, the police came along but I don't know what transpired.

In message , steve 
robinson <steve@colevalleyinteriors.co.k> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>

>> >
>> > Personally I'd be tempted to go and talk to an ambulance chasing
>> > brief, a no win no fee mob and you might find your son could come
>> > out of this smelling of roses.
>> >
>>
>> It is unlikely that any lawyer would touch this with a bargepole, and
>> certainly not on a no win no fee basis when there is virtually no
>> chance of recovering damages.
>
>Also a high probablity that the child would be saddled with a rather
>large counterclaim off the drivers insurance
>

Virtually guaranteed. The effect of this would be that the defendant 
would be able to offset all damages and costs against any damages 
awarded to the child, and the lawyer would be faced with trying to 
recover the costs from the child - an impossible task.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:01:21 +0100, nobody@nowhere.co.uk wrote:

>My 14 year old son, who lives with his mother who has sole custody,
>has just had a bike accident. He came out in front of a car which hit
>him, and accepts it was his fault since he didn't look whether a car
>was coming. He is very lucky to be essentially uninj