Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Damage to cars parked on a public footpath
1,631 views
Skip to first unread message
Cash
Jan 1, 2014, 4:50:05 PM1/1/14
to
Scenario:
A car parked halfway on the public footpath and road with around a 450mm
(18") or so gap between the car and my garden wall.
I have two young grandchildren (5 and 4 years old respectively) who ride
their small foot-powered scooters on the footpath with adult supervision and
when the car is parked in above position, there is a temptation for them to
ride in the gap between car and wall on a downhill slope.
They are a rather adventurous pair and they certainly have no fear of speed,
danger or awareness of the damage that they could inflict.
Question:
If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the gap twixt
wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car in anyway, who
would be responsible for the payment of the repair to the vehicle?
I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other supervising
party.
This damage by the way, has not as yet taken place, as we tend to restrict
the children from riding their scooters past the vehicle when it's parked in
the above position - but "sod's law" dictates that this will eventually
happen when our attention is distracted and I would prefer to be forearmed
if it does.
Many Thanks for any replies
Cash
A car parked halfway on the public footpath and road with around a 450mm
(18") or so gap between the car and my garden wall.
I have two young grandchildren (5 and 4 years old respectively) who ride
their small foot-powered scooters on the footpath with adult supervision and
when the car is parked in above position, there is a temptation for them to
ride in the gap between car and wall on a downhill slope.
They are a rather adventurous pair and they certainly have no fear of speed,
danger or awareness of the damage that they could inflict.
Question:
If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the gap twixt
wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car in anyway, who
would be responsible for the payment of the repair to the vehicle?
I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other supervising
party.
This damage by the way, has not as yet taken place, as we tend to restrict
the children from riding their scooters past the vehicle when it's parked in
the above position - but "sod's law" dictates that this will eventually
happen when our attention is distracted and I would prefer to be forearmed
if it does.
Many Thanks for any replies
Cash
David L. Martel
Jan 1, 2014, 6:10:06 PM1/1/14
to
Cash,
Is the car legally parked? Are you providing supervision of the children
or are their parents visiting?
Good luck,
Dave M.
Is the car legally parked? Are you providing supervision of the children
or are their parents visiting?
Good luck,
Dave M.
Simon Finnigan
Jan 1, 2014, 6:25:03 PM1/1/14
to
to avoid paying a solicitor? :-)
Cash
Jan 1, 2014, 6:55:03 PM1/1/14
to
t - then NO, it's not legally parked.
Both - If you mean do we baby-sit the nippers when the parents are at work
of need a rest AND when the family is visiting just for a natter etc.
Cash
Jan 1, 2014, 6:55:03 PM1/1/14
to
wish to have some correct information as to the legality/responsibility of
things before I do so.
As a matter of information, in this case there is no animosity involved with
the aforesaid neighbour, who actually resides some way down the street but
parks outside my property when "his space" on the highway is taken - he
prefers to park on the road even though like every other property in the
street, he has purpose-built off-road parking at the side of his house.
Cash
Paul Rudin
Jan 2, 2014, 2:05:10 AM1/2/14
to
"Cash" <.............\\@...............//.com> writes:
> A car parked halfway on the public footpath and road with around a 450mm
> (18") or so gap between the car and my garden wall.
Note that driving on the pavement is an offence (so is driving on a
> A car parked halfway on the public footpath and road with around a 450mm
> (18") or so gap between the car and my garden wall.
public footpath - but I'm guessing you don't mean public footpath in the
technical sense).
Peter Crosland
Jan 2, 2014, 2:45:02 AM1/2/14
to
--
Peter Crosland
Paul Rudin
Jan 2, 2014, 3:35:03 AM1/2/14
to
but riding a bike on a public footpath is not (although it is a trespass
against the land owner - but that's a civil matter).
However kids under 10 can't commit criminal offences AIUI or, at least,
the courts won't convict them.
steve robinson
Jan 2, 2014, 4:20:02 AM1/2/14
to
and its obvous that the childrens bikes are going to cause damage.
The vehicle being ilegally parked is not a defence if it gets damaged
--
F Murtz
Jan 2, 2014, 3:40:03 AM1/2/14
to
Judith
Jan 2, 2014, 4:15:05 AM1/2/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:55:03 +0000, "Cash"
<.............\\@...............//.com> wrote:
<snip>
>As a matter of information, in this case there is no animosity involved with
>the aforesaid neighbour, who actually resides some way down the street but
>parks outside my property when "his space" on the highway is taken - he
>prefers to park on the road even though like every other property in the
>street, he has purpose-built off-road parking at the side of his house.
It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not necessarily from
the kids). He may then just realise how inconsiderate he is being and park his
car in a safer place (ie on his own drive)
Obstruction is described in the Highways Act 1980 as:
"if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs
the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a
fine not exceeding (level 3 on the standard scale)."
<.............\\@...............//.com> wrote:
<snip>
>As a matter of information, in this case there is no animosity involved with
>the aforesaid neighbour, who actually resides some way down the street but
>parks outside my property when "his space" on the highway is taken - he
>prefers to park on the road even though like every other property in the
>street, he has purpose-built off-road parking at the side of his house.
the kids). He may then just realise how inconsiderate he is being and park his
car in a safer place (ie on his own drive)
Obstruction is described in the Highways Act 1980 as:
"if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs
the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a
fine not exceeding (level 3 on the standard scale)."
Judith
Jan 2, 2014, 4:15:05 AM1/2/14
to
Syd Rumpo
Jan 2, 2014, 4:40:02 AM1/2/14
to
surely bear some responsibility for it. If a £20k work of art were left
unattended on the road by its owner, that would be considered foolhardy:
why is a £20k car different?
But that's just my opinion and has no legal basis as far as I know.
Cheers
--
Syd
Broadback
Jan 2, 2014, 4:50:03 AM1/2/14
to
impunity now that there are no police officers patrolling on foot to
take action. People park at junctions, partly on pavements, causing pram
pushers to go onto the road, the list is endless. Not to mention the
absurdity of mobile phone use whilst driving, it is rare to go on a
journey of any length and not see someone breaking this law.
Lobster
Jan 2, 2014, 5:00:06 AM1/2/14
to
On 02 Jan 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> grunted in
news:a4bac9hpif0uhoinj...@4ax.com:
> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie on his
> own drive)
I have a neighbour down the street who does this all the time; he also
never trims his hedge which means that half of the pavement is obstructed
by his car and another third by overgrown hedge. When I'm on foot, and
it's been raining, I get soaked by brushing against the dripping fronds of
the hedge, and when I'm driving out of my drive I can't get a clear view of
the oncoming traffic on my road. Drives me nuts! I know my next door
neighbour (a stroppy bugger) has had words, to no avail.
I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
--
David
news:a4bac9hpif0uhoinj...@4ax.com:
> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie on his
> own drive)
never trims his hedge which means that half of the pavement is obstructed
by his car and another third by overgrown hedge. When I'm on foot, and
it's been raining, I get soaked by brushing against the dripping fronds of
the hedge, and when I'm driving out of my drive I can't get a clear view of
the oncoming traffic on my road. Drives me nuts! I know my next door
neighbour (a stroppy bugger) has had words, to no avail.
I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
--
David
steve robinson
Jan 2, 2014, 5:15:02 AM1/2/14
to
causes far more aggrevation for them
When they had a purge locally to me everyone just parkd on the road
instead of part on the pavement the ensueing chaos cuse mayhem
--
steve robinson
Jan 2, 2014, 5:25:02 AM1/2/14
to
cant hang your car on the wall !!
Would you accept that i could smash all your windows, wreck your home
and you bear some responsibility because its built near a road
--
Janet
Jan 2, 2014, 6:05:02 AM1/2/14
to
In article <87r48q3...@rudin.co.uk>, paul....@rudin.co.uk says...
Especially if they were not riding a bike on the pavement, just a
small foot-push scooter.
Janet.
small foot-push scooter.
Janet.
Mark Goodge
Jan 2, 2014, 6:15:02 AM1/2/14
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:50:05 +0000, "Cash"
<.............\\@...............//.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the gap twixt
>wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car in anyway, who
>would be responsible for the payment of the repair to the vehicle?
>
>I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other supervising
>party.
If it could be shown that the children's guardian had reasonable cause to
believe that damage may be inflicted by the children, and failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent such damage, then they would be liable.
Otherwise, the keeper of the vehicle would just have to swallow the cost.
The fact that the car is illegally parked makes no difference to basic
liability. It may be a reason why a court would reduce the damages awarded.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
<.............\\@...............//.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the gap twixt
>wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car in anyway, who
>would be responsible for the payment of the repair to the vehicle?
>
>I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other supervising
>party.
believe that damage may be inflicted by the children, and failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent such damage, then they would be liable.
Otherwise, the keeper of the vehicle would just have to swallow the cost.
The fact that the car is illegally parked makes no difference to basic
liability. It may be a reason why a court would reduce the damages awarded.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Simon Finnigan
Jan 2, 2014, 6:20:02 AM1/2/14
to
been doing something similar a while ago. When the driver saw the damage he
was most unamused :-)
Paul Rudin
Jan 2, 2014, 6:35:03 AM1/2/14
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
> The fact that the car is illegally parked...
Although the strange thing is that (apart from London) *parking* on the
pavement is not per se an offence. But driving on it is. Of course you
can't (outlandish situations aside) park on the pavement without driving
on it in the first place.
> The fact that the car is illegally parked...
Although the strange thing is that (apart from London) *parking* on the
pavement is not per se an offence. But driving on it is. Of course you
can't (outlandish situations aside) park on the pavement without driving
on it in the first place.
Syd Rumpo
Jan 2, 2014, 5:55:02 AM1/2/14
to
statue, for example, could well be left unattended in the road and few
would be surprised if it were 'modified'.
My point is: where does this stop? Hyperbolically, an accidental
scratch on a £300k penis extension could cost the unemployed single
mother quite a lot. IMO, the owner must have some responsibility for
his property if he wants to leave it in public.
Cheers
--
Syd
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jan 2, 2014, 6:30:07 AM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:00:06 +0000, Lobster
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
>pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
>car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
>side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
I do have a wheelchair and I have scratched cars parked on the
<davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
>pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
>car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
>side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
pavement a few times. It has always been accidental damage but I don't
feel too sorry about it!
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus neural network software http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
Simon Finnigan
Jan 2, 2014, 6:50:06 AM1/2/14
to
Stephen Wolstenholme <eas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:00:06 +0000, Lobster
> <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
>> pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
>> car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
>> side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
>
> I do have a wheelchair and I have scratched cars parked on the
> pavement a few times. It has always been accidental damage but I don't
> feel too sorry about it!
>
> Steve
If a car is in a sensible place, they damaging it is just wrong. But if the
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:00:06 +0000, Lobster
> <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that "when I'm
>> pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really hard to get by your
>> car and it would be a real shame if I accidently scratched it all down the
>> side" (I don't have a pram/wheelchair BTW...)
>
> I do have a wheelchair and I have scratched cars parked on the
> pavement a few times. It has always been accidental damage but I don't
> feel too sorry about it!
>
> Steve
driver can't be bothered being considerate, I see no reason for other
people to be considerate to them.
Mark Goodge
Jan 2, 2014, 8:45:10 AM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:50:06 +0000, Simon Finnigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Fortunately, English law does not operate on the principle that two wrongs
make a right.
and typed:
make a right.
steve robinson
Jan 2, 2014, 10:05:02 AM1/2/14
to
road is, pulling cars upon the pavement may be the way the neighbours
have worked out thier parking arrangements informally.
If one was to park wholy in the road it may well prevent another
parking opposite or being able to get on or off the driveway
Last thing you want is neighbours at war over car parking space it gets
really nasty
--
steve robinson
Jan 2, 2014, 10:10:02 AM1/2/14
to
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 2, 2014, 11:50:02 AM1/2/14
to
Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie
> on his own drive)
Recently someone told me that someone parked a car dangerously close
> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie
> on his own drive)
to his. After pulling out of his parking space (without incident),
he left a note on the other car saying simply, "Sorry about the
scratch on your car."
Must have driven the other person crazy looking for a scratch.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
David L. Martel
Jan 2, 2014, 10:55:02 AM1/2/14
to
Cash,
If the children are under your supervision and you can not or will not
prevent them from damaging the property of others then you are responsible.
Children of that age are not responsible for their actions.
It's less clear to me as to who is responsible when their parents are
visiting. That depends on the facts at the time of the visit.
Since it's your home and you do watch over the children I would urge you
to train them to stay away from these parked cars, irrespective if
"responsibility".
Good Luck,
Dave M.
If the children are under your supervision and you can not or will not
prevent them from damaging the property of others then you are responsible.
Children of that age are not responsible for their actions.
It's less clear to me as to who is responsible when their parents are
visiting. That depends on the facts at the time of the visit.
Since it's your home and you do watch over the children I would urge you
to train them to stay away from these parked cars, irrespective if
"responsibility".
Good Luck,
Dave M.
Judith
Jan 2, 2014, 8:40:17 AM1/2/14
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:50:03 +0000, Broadback <messag...@j-towill.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>As an older person it is noticeable how many minor laws are broken with
>impunity now that there are no police officers patrolling on foot to
>take action. People park at junctions, partly on pavements, causing pram
>pushers to go onto the road, the list is endless. Not to mention the
>absurdity of mobile phone use whilst driving, it is rare to go on a
>journey of any length and not see someone breaking this law.
Please don't get me going about cyclists !!
wrote:
<snip>
>As an older person it is noticeable how many minor laws are broken with
>impunity now that there are no police officers patrolling on foot to
>take action. People park at junctions, partly on pavements, causing pram
>pushers to go onto the road, the list is endless. Not to mention the
>absurdity of mobile phone use whilst driving, it is rare to go on a
>journey of any length and not see someone breaking this law.
Lobster
Jan 2, 2014, 3:55:01 PM1/2/14
to
On 02 Jan 2014, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> grunted
in news:xn0iwkt4...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>
>> Stephen Wolstenholme <eas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:00:06 +0000, Lobster
>> > <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that
>> "when I'm >> pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really
>> hard to get by your >> car and it would be a real shame if I
>> accidently scratched it all down the >> side" (I don't have a
>> pram/wheelchair BTW...)
>> >
>> > I do have a wheelchair and I have scratched cars parked on the
>> > pavement a few times. It has always been accidental damage but I
>> > don't feel too sorry about it!
rushhour the traffic generally moves at or above the 30 mph speed limit.
I'm sure the reason they park this way is to avoid being 'clipped' by fast-
moving vehicles. They have a drive which will fit both of their vehicles
one behind the other, but I just surmise that it's too awkward for them to
do that sod's law says the wrong vehicle will be in pole position. So I'm
not very sympathetic...
> Last thing you want is neighbours at war over car parking space it gets
> really nasty
Absolutely, which is why I've left it to my neighbour to have the
discussions! :)
--
David
in news:xn0iwkt4...@reader80.eternal-september.org:
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>
>> Stephen Wolstenholme <eas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 10:00:06 +0000, Lobster
>> > <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm tempted to leave a note on his windscreen to the effect that
>> "when I'm >> pushing my pram/wheelchair up the street it's really
>> hard to get by your >> car and it would be a real shame if I
>> accidently scratched it all down the >> side" (I don't have a
>> pram/wheelchair BTW...)
>> >
>> > I do have a wheelchair and I have scratched cars parked on the
>> > pavement a few times. It has always been accidental damage but I
>> > don't feel too sorry about it!
> Thats how neighbour disputes start, we dont know how conjested this
> road is, pulling cars upon the pavement may be the way the neighbours
> have worked out thier parking arrangements informally.
> If one was to park wholy in the road it may well prevent another
> parking opposite or being able to get on or off the driveway
Well in my case it's a relatively fast, wide, suburban road; out of
> road is, pulling cars upon the pavement may be the way the neighbours
> have worked out thier parking arrangements informally.
> If one was to park wholy in the road it may well prevent another
> parking opposite or being able to get on or off the driveway
rushhour the traffic generally moves at or above the 30 mph speed limit.
I'm sure the reason they park this way is to avoid being 'clipped' by fast-
moving vehicles. They have a drive which will fit both of their vehicles
one behind the other, but I just surmise that it's too awkward for them to
do that sod's law says the wrong vehicle will be in pole position. So I'm
not very sympathetic...
> Last thing you want is neighbours at war over car parking space it gets
> really nasty
discussions! :)
--
David
Cash
Jan 2, 2014, 7:20:02 PM1/2/14
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:50:05 +0000, "Cash"
> <.............\\@...............//.com> put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>> If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the
>> gap twixt wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car
>> in anyway, who would be responsible for the payment of the repair to
>> the vehicle?
>>
>> I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other
>> supervising party.
>
> If it could be shown that the children's guardian had reasonable
> cause to believe that damage may be inflicted by the children, and
> failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage, then they
> would be liable. Otherwise, the keeper of the vehicle would just have
> to swallow the cost.
>
> The fact that the car is illegally parked makes no difference to basic
> liability. It may be a reason why a court would reduce the damages
> awarded.
>
> Mark
Thank you Mark for your reply and it would seem that this is a bit of a grey
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 21:50:05 +0000, "Cash"
> <.............\\@...............//.com> put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>> If one or both these children riding their scooters go through the
>> gap twixt wall and car and in doing so, accidentally damage the car
>> in anyway, who would be responsible for the payment of the repair to
>> the vehicle?
>>
>> I.E. car owner, children's parents, grandparents or any other
>> supervising party.
>
> If it could be shown that the children's guardian had reasonable
> cause to believe that damage may be inflicted by the children, and
> failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage, then they
> would be liable. Otherwise, the keeper of the vehicle would just have
> to swallow the cost.
>
> The fact that the car is illegally parked makes no difference to basic
> liability. It may be a reason why a court would reduce the damages
> awarded.
>
> Mark
area with regards to responsibility, and if my two 'little angels' do cause
any damage in the future, then it would appear that some sensible negotions
would be in order to resolve the matter - and it's a good job that I have
trained my two little 'kamikazes' to obey most of my serious instructions,
as I'm bouncing around my 70s and I certainly ain't up to standing in front
of them when they're going hell for leather down the footpath to stop 'em in
full flight. <vbg>
One again, many thanks.
Thanks als to the others that have responed with their various and
interesting comments.
Cash
Yellow
Jan 2, 2014, 9:40:02 PM1/2/14
to
In article <bimdb1...@mid.individual.net>, .............
\\@...............//.com says...
Reading this made me think - "what if they, while riding hell-for-
leather-down-the-footpath, hit a pedestrian?
Never mind the car (although I think you should mind it!), what if they
hit some poor soul minding their own business, walking along the path?
\\@...............//.com says...
leather-down-the-footpath, hit a pedestrian?
Never mind the car (although I think you should mind it!), what if they
hit some poor soul minding their own business, walking along the path?
Cash
Jan 3, 2014, 2:35:04 PM1/3/14
to
With all due respects, just read the OP and the bit about adult
supervision - and the "hell for leather" bit was simply a little fun on my
part.
It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative answer to
what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just in case an
accident does happen.
I could proceed further, but I'm sure the mods wouldn't allow the post. (I
hope they allow this response though)
Cash
Yellow
Jan 3, 2014, 6:05:07 PM1/3/14
to
In article <biohep...@mid.individual.net>, .............
\\@...............//.com says...
I've read the whole thread - it was about children riding their bikes or
peddle cars on the pavement such that there is a real fear that they
will damage property because either lack supervision or because they do
not do as they are told.
You wanted to know if you would be held responsible if this damage
occurred.
I read it with interest because an overwhelming number of repliers
seemed to think the property deserved to be damaged - which I found
quite shocking.
>
> It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative answer to
> what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just in case an
> accident does happen.
I'm not a lawyer so I cannot help you with definitive answers I'm
afraid, but then neither can a lawyer.
\\@...............//.com says...
peddle cars on the pavement such that there is a real fear that they
will damage property because either lack supervision or because they do
not do as they are told.
You wanted to know if you would be held responsible if this damage
occurred.
I read it with interest because an overwhelming number of repliers
seemed to think the property deserved to be damaged - which I found
quite shocking.
>
> It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative answer to
> what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just in case an
> accident does happen.
afraid, but then neither can a lawyer.
Cash
Jan 3, 2014, 7:05:02 PM1/3/14
to
they are supervised and generally listen to instruction - but children of
that age can and do get excited and will forget in that excitement (as any
responsible parent will tell you) - and you have misread my OP
> You wanted to know if you would be held responsible if this damage
> occurred.
owner of the car who may or may not be negligible for parking his vehicle on
the footpath.
> I read it with interest because an overwhelming number of repliers
> seemed to think the property deserved to be damaged - which I found
> quite shocking.
parking - but I also disagree with any deliberate, retaliatory damage.
>> It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative
>> answer to what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just
>> in case an accident does happen.
>
> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot help you with definitive answers I'm
> afraid, but then neither can a lawyer.
would expect (and he would) for him to be able to give me a definitive,
legal answer on responsibility - and the possible outcome of any court
action.
Have a good new year.
This subject is now finished on my part.
Cash
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 3, 2014, 8:00:08 PM1/3/14
to
Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
> I read it with interest because an overwhelming number of
> repliers seemed to think the property deserved to be damaged -
> which I found quite shocking.
If you park your car illegally in a way that obstructs the footpath,
> I read it with interest because an overwhelming number of
> repliers seemed to think the property deserved to be damaged -
> which I found quite shocking.
and makes it harder for people acting legally on the footpath to get
by, you shouldn't be surprised if your illegal activity results in
some accidental damage to your car.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 4:45:02 AM1/4/14
to
--
F Murtz
Jan 4, 2014, 1:10:04 AM1/4/14
to
dodge the obstruction.
Yellow
Jan 4, 2014, 1:10:04 AM1/4/14
to
In article <XnsA2AAAACECBB8Fs...@130.133.4.11>,
spam...@lexregia.com says...
It is not an excuse for it being damaged if that damage was avoidable.
Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity nor is
their act of play an excuse to damage property regardless of where or
how that property has been left.
If the children cannot be trusted to be careful then they could simply
play elsewhere or play in a different way.
spam...@lexregia.com says...
Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity nor is
their act of play an excuse to damage property regardless of where or
how that property has been left.
If the children cannot be trusted to be careful then they could simply
play elsewhere or play in a different way.
Paul Rudin
Jan 4, 2014, 5:40:02 AM1/4/14
to
Yellow <no...@none.com> writes:
> Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity...
I'm not sure attempting to characterise things in terms of necessity
really helps. Very little of what we do in our day to day lives is
strictly necessary. But that, of itself, doesn't mean we should not do
those things.
> nor is their act of play an excuse to damage property regardless of
> where or how that property has been left.
The question is whether the act amounts to negligence according to the
usual principles of that tort.
The reasonableness of where stuff is left is, I would argue relevant. If
I go and place my Ming vase (assuming I had one) in the middle of the
road do you think I should be able to claim its value from someone who
runs it over? Of course that's an extreme example, but the point is that
you don't owe a duty of care to everyone in all circumstances, and if
damage is too remote you're not liable for that damage. If there's no
duty of care, or if the damage is too remote then an action in
negligence will fail.
> If the children cannot be trusted to be careful then they could simply
> play elsewhere or play in a different way.
I'm not sure I agree with this - it's a question of degree. In general
there's far too much molly-coddling of children these days IMHO - back
in the day we were left to our own devices all day long from a pretty
early age.
That doesn't necessarily excuse damage caused. I'm sure I kicked the odd
football through panes of glass and such like as a kid (and had to cough
up pocket money to pay for the damage). But better that (within reason)
kids are allowed to develop a bit of independence rather being kept in
all day long and doing nothing but play Xbox.
> Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity...
I'm not sure attempting to characterise things in terms of necessity
really helps. Very little of what we do in our day to day lives is
strictly necessary. But that, of itself, doesn't mean we should not do
those things.
> nor is their act of play an excuse to damage property regardless of
> where or how that property has been left.
usual principles of that tort.
The reasonableness of where stuff is left is, I would argue relevant. If
I go and place my Ming vase (assuming I had one) in the middle of the
road do you think I should be able to claim its value from someone who
runs it over? Of course that's an extreme example, but the point is that
you don't owe a duty of care to everyone in all circumstances, and if
damage is too remote you're not liable for that damage. If there's no
duty of care, or if the damage is too remote then an action in
negligence will fail.
> If the children cannot be trusted to be careful then they could simply
> play elsewhere or play in a different way.
there's far too much molly-coddling of children these days IMHO - back
in the day we were left to our own devices all day long from a pretty
early age.
That doesn't necessarily excuse damage caused. I'm sure I kicked the odd
football through panes of glass and such like as a kid (and had to cough
up pocket money to pay for the damage). But better that (within reason)
kids are allowed to develop a bit of independence rather being kept in
all day long and doing nothing but play Xbox.
Paul Rudin
Jan 4, 2014, 5:40:10 AM1/4/14
to
perhaps clarify that I didn't intend to suggest that illegality on the
part of the motorist would necessarily reduce liability (if any) for
damage.
A claim in negligence against someone damaging your car would depend on
the ordinary principles of negligence. The positioning of the car might
make contributory negligence of part of the motorist arguable.
On the face of it I suspect that you would have a arguable claim in
negligence - although I'm not sure (and right now don't have time to
research it) what the issues are about the defendants being children and
whether a parent would have vicarious liability for the torts of his
children in these circumstances, or whether failure to control your
children could of itself amount to negligence (there might be issues
with e.g. establishing a duty of care or remoteness here).
In the case of children being liable in their own right, there is of
course the issue of them having the means to meet any award in damages -
quite possibly it's a waste of time suing them even if you have a strong
case.
GB
Jan 4, 2014, 5:40:17 AM1/4/14
to
I have neighbours who park on the pavement, blocking it, so pedestrians
have to walk in the street round their car. The alternative is to push
past in a very narrow gap they sometimes leave. If I take reasonable
care but have some metal zip or button on my clothes that accidentally
scratches their car, whose responsibility is that?
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 6:05:02 AM1/4/14
to
--
Simon Finnigan
Jan 4, 2014, 7:55:02 AM1/4/14
to
vehicles squeezing past the cars. Am I expected to put my life at risk
walking along the road, trying to avoid those HGVs to avoid any possible
damage to a car parked blocking my use of the pavement, or am I only
expected to take reasonable care to avoid damage?
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 8:45:05 AM1/4/14
to
other options you could wait until its safe to cross the road or walk
around the vehicle, even find an alternative route.
You could of course call the police and report the obstruction.
--
Vir Campestris
Jan 4, 2014, 8:50:01 AM1/4/14
to
On 04/01/2014 12:55, Simon Finnigan wrote:
> Now imagine that the road is quite a busy one, with many large HGV type
> vehicles squeezing past the cars. Am I expected to put my life at risk
> walking along the road, trying to avoid those HGVs to avoid any possible
> damage to a car parked blocking my use of the pavement, or am I only
> expected to take reasonable care to avoid damage?
And suppose that you were injured, as a result of the negligence of the
> Now imagine that the road is quite a busy one, with many large HGV type
> vehicles squeezing past the cars. Am I expected to put my life at risk
> walking along the road, trying to avoid those HGVs to avoid any possible
> damage to a car parked blocking my use of the pavement, or am I only
> expected to take reasonable care to avoid damage?
car owner in obstructing the foot path. Would you have a claim against
them for damages? At this point it might be valuable to you that they
have mandatory insurance...
Andy
Doctor Dave
Jan 4, 2014, 8:50:01 AM1/4/14
to
Unfortunately, if somebody infringes our rights (such as access to the pavement in question), there isn't always an instant satisfactory (legal) remedy available.
Other options here might include:
- Calling the Police to deal with the obstruction
- Waiting until traffic had subsided
- Taking a different route
- Securing zips, buttons or wearing clothing that can't scratch if that really is a likely outcome.
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 10:10:05 AM1/4/14
to
be a start but what about not squeezing through a gap that is to narrow.
Thats real basic, what about you cant squeeze a two foot wide backside
through an 18 inch wide gap.
Such parking is unreasonable, bloody infuriating but the best option is
complain to the plod if the offender does it on a regular basis.
Scratching the car intentional or otherwise is only going to start tit
for tat action between neighbours (usally the wrong ones too)
My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in 'his'
spot she had parked legally was going about her job £1100 to fix.
Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to suffer the cost
herself.
>
> Unfortunately, if somebody infringes our rights (such as access to
> the pavement in question), there isn't always an instant satisfactory
> (legal) remedy available.
>
> Other options here might include:
> - Calling the Police to deal with the obstruction
> - Waiting until traffic had subsided
> - Taking a different route
> - Securing zips, buttons or wearing clothing that can't scratch if
> that really is a likely outcome.
Tim Watts
Jan 4, 2014, 12:00:03 PM1/4/14
to
On Saturday 04 January 2014 13:45 steve robinson wrote in
uk.legal.moderated:
> You could of course call the police and report the obstruction.
Who would do exactly nothing...
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/
http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
uk.legal.moderated:
> You could of course call the police and report the obstruction.
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/
http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 4, 2014, 11:30:05 AM1/4/14
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in
> 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job �1100
> to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to
> suffer the cost herself.
Shouldn't insurance cover that?
> My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in
> 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job �1100
> to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to
> suffer the cost herself.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Simon Finnigan
Jan 4, 2014, 2:15:41 PM1/4/14
to
has cast a shadow over a patch of spilt diesel, resulting in a very sloppy
area on the pavement that isn't visible. I slip on said diesel and fall
onto the car, denting a body panel. I've taken every reasonable step to
avoid damage to the car, but the car has still ended up damaged.
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 2:40:02 PM1/4/14
to
drivers fault if you trip over a bit of rubble at night for slip on
some vomit and fall against his/her car
Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay , its
not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up or
left the rubble about.
Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
Next you will blame your diety because the roads wet
--
Tim Watts
Jan 4, 2014, 2:55:02 PM1/4/14
to
On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
uk.legal.moderated:
> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay , its
> not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up or
> left the rubble about.
>
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
uk.legal.moderated:
> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay , its
> not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up or
> left the rubble about.
>
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 3:05:02 PM1/4/14
to
Tim Watts wrote:
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
> uk.legal.moderated:
>
>
> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
> > up or left the rubble about.
> >
> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>
> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
What difference does that make
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
> uk.legal.moderated:
>
>
> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
> > up or left the rubble about.
> >
> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>
> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>
> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
> can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
The courts would be a better option
> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
> can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
--
Message has been deleted
Percy Picacity
Jan 4, 2014, 3:20:05 PM1/4/14
to
In article <xn0iwntc...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
If it is actually an 'accident', a term going out of use for road
traffic collisions, then it may well be that no-one is negligent. If
there is no negligence I am afraid the owner of the motor car has no
claim against anyone, except his deity: who may or may not respond. To
be specific, if the pedestrian takes reasonable care he is *not*
responsible for any damage he inadvertently does. He does not have an
absolute obligation to avoid damaging shiny expensive paintwork.
>
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>
> Next you will blame your diety because the roads wet
--
Percy Picacity
traffic collisions, then it may well be that no-one is negligent. If
there is no negligence I am afraid the owner of the motor car has no
claim against anyone, except his deity: who may or may not respond. To
be specific, if the pedestrian takes reasonable care he is *not*
responsible for any damage he inadvertently does. He does not have an
absolute obligation to avoid damaging shiny expensive paintwork.
>
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>
> Next you will blame your diety because the roads wet
--
Percy Picacity
Jan 4, 2014, 3:30:02 PM1/4/14
to
In article <xn0iwnu5...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
But they will require evidence not merely that someone caused the damage
but also that they were negligent. They will look at all the
circumstances, and if the person who did the damage was a child they may
well expect a lower standard of skill and care than from an adult. They
will certainly not expect the child to walk in the road to avoid the
important man's shiny car.
--
Percy Picacity
but also that they were negligent. They will look at all the
circumstances, and if the person who did the damage was a child they may
well expect a lower standard of skill and care than from an adult. They
will certainly not expect the child to walk in the road to avoid the
important man's shiny car.
--
Percy Picacity
Tim Watts
Jan 4, 2014, 3:55:05 PM1/4/14
to
On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:05 steve robinson wrote in
increased risk of mishaps.
Simples.
>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
>> can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>
> The courts would be a better option
>
>
>
> --
uk.legal.moderated:
> Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>
>> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>> > up or left the rubble about.
>> >
>> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>
>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>
> What difference does that make
Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would not be at
> Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>
>> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>> > up or left the rubble about.
>> >
>> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>
>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>
> What difference does that make
increased risk of mishaps.
Simples.
>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
>> can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>
> The courts would be a better option
>
>
>
> --
Yellow
Jan 4, 2014, 1:25:05 PM1/4/14
to
In article <87wqig1...@rudin.co.uk>, paul....@rudin.co.uk says...
trying to make their way along a footpath because they have a need to
travel and children playing and choosing to play where a car is parked.
Obviously, in the first case your options are finite - you have to go
round the car, squeeze past, cross the road or find another route - but
in the second, the children's options are infinite and include simply
playing elsewhere or doing something else instead.
>
> Yellow <no...@none.com> writes:
>
> > Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity...
>
> I'm not sure attempting to characterise things in terms of necessity
> really helps. Very little of what we do in our day to day lives is
> strictly necessary. But that, of itself, doesn't mean we should not do
> those things.
>
What I meant here was that there is a huge difference between someone
> Yellow <no...@none.com> writes:
>
> > Children playing on the pavement is not a necessary activity...
>
> I'm not sure attempting to characterise things in terms of necessity
> really helps. Very little of what we do in our day to day lives is
> strictly necessary. But that, of itself, doesn't mean we should not do
> those things.
>
trying to make their way along a footpath because they have a need to
travel and children playing and choosing to play where a car is parked.
Obviously, in the first case your options are finite - you have to go
round the car, squeeze past, cross the road or find another route - but
in the second, the children's options are infinite and include simply
playing elsewhere or doing something else instead.
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 2:05:02 PM1/4/14
to
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in
> > 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job �1100
> > to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to
> > suffer the cost herself.
>
> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
Yes, but a £600 excess, premiums loaded for the next 5 years plus loss
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in
> > 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job �1100
> > to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to
> > suffer the cost herself.
>
> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
of ncd made it non viable
--
Syd Rumpo
Jan 4, 2014, 3:50:02 PM1/4/14
to
unattended valuables left in a public place? I don't think so. What
next, you leave your gold-plated Bentley in a public playground and
complain when it gets scratched? I doubt the courts are that silly.
Cheers
--
Syd
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 4, 2014, 4:00:03 PM1/4/14
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> If you are unable to see where your walking why walk there, is
> it the drivers fault if you trip over a bit of rubble at night
> for slip on some vomit and fall against his/her car
If the driver put the pedestrian in that position and there was no
> If you are unable to see where your walking why walk there, is
> it the drivers fault if you trip over a bit of rubble at night
> for slip on some vomit and fall against his/her car
reasonably safe alternative, the pedestrian won't be blamed.
> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you
> pay , its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover
> through up or left the rubble about.
when someone isn't negligent.
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
in the position he was in, he was contributorally negligent
> Next you will blame your diety because the roads wet
his house was struck by lightning. Some years before a religious
nut put his own house in the name of God, so the injured person sued
quasi in rem.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Tim Watts
Jan 4, 2014, 4:00:10 PM1/4/14
to
On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>
>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>
>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>
>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>
> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
> support you?
>
Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
court view that?
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>
>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>
>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>
>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>
> support you?
>
Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
court view that?
Message has been deleted
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 4, 2014, 4:25:02 PM1/4/14
to
Tim Watts <tw+u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> August West wrote:
>> Tim Watts wrote:
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance,
> and a pram scratches the car accidently without malicious
> aforethough, how would a court view that?
If there is no negligence there should be no liability.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> August West wrote:
>> Tim Watts wrote:
>>> steve robinson wrote:
>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then
>>> you can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a
>>> mishap.
>>
>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal
>> authority to support you?
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so,
> is placing his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful
> users of the footpath.
What is the basis for negligence per se under UK law?
>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then
>>> you can hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a
>>> mishap.
>>
>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal
>> authority to support you?
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so,
> is placing his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful
> users of the footpath.
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance,
> and a pram scratches the car accidently without malicious
> aforethough, how would a court view that?
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Message has been deleted
Mark Goodge
Jan 4, 2014, 4:55:02 PM1/4/14
to
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 20:55:05 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:05 steve robinson wrote in
>uk.legal.moderated:
>
>> Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>>> > up or left the rubble about.
>>> >
>>> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>
>> What difference does that make
>
>Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would not be at
>increased risk of mishaps.
So if someone is speeding and someone else negligently crashes into them,
they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
breaking the law?
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:05 steve robinson wrote in
>uk.legal.moderated:
>
>> Tim Watts wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>> > its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>>> > up or left the rubble about.
>>> >
>>> > Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>
>> What difference does that make
>
>Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would not be at
>increased risk of mishaps.
they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
breaking the law?
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 4, 2014, 4:10:05 PM1/4/14
to
rates even though a loss isn't at all your fault.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Peter Crosland
Jan 4, 2014, 4:20:26 PM1/4/14
to
On 04/01/2014 21:00, Tim Watts wrote:
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>
>>
>> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>
>>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>>
>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
>>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>>
>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
>> support you?
>>
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
> his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
>
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
> scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
> court view that?
The Court would look at the actions of the person pushing the pram to
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>
>>
>> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>
>>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>>
>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>
>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
>>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>>
>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
>> support you?
>>
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
> his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
>
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
> scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
> court view that?
see if they had behaved negligently. That would depend on the exact
facts of the case so it is difficult to hypothesise. What you need to
understand is that two wrongs do no make a right. The car driver may
have been very stupid and may also have broken the law but that does not
mean he is not protected against someone else's negligence.
--
Peter Crosland
Yellow
Jan 4, 2014, 5:20:05 PM1/4/14
to
In article <bip1a8...@mid.individual.net>, .............
\\@...............//.com says...
>
> Yellow wrote:
> > In article <biohep...@mid.individual.net>, .............
> >> It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative
> >> answer to what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just
> >> in case an accident does happen.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer so I cannot help you with definitive answers I'm
> > afraid, but then neither can a lawyer.
>
> Again you are incorrect. If I paid my family lawyer a fee for his advice, I
> would expect (and he would) for him to be able to give me a definitive,
> legal answer on responsibility - and the possible outcome of any court
> action.
Legal advice is not the same as having definitive answer - it is simply
advice, an opinion.
\\@...............//.com says...
>
> Yellow wrote:
> > In article <biohep...@mid.individual.net>, .............
> >> It would be interesting though if you could provide a definative
> >> answer to what in this case is simply a hypothetical question just
> >> in case an accident does happen.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer so I cannot help you with definitive answers I'm
> > afraid, but then neither can a lawyer.
>
> Again you are incorrect. If I paid my family lawyer a fee for his advice, I
> would expect (and he would) for him to be able to give me a definitive,
> legal answer on responsibility - and the possible outcome of any court
> action.
Legal advice is not the same as having definitive answer - it is simply
advice, an opinion.
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 6:35:02 PM1/4/14
to
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> > Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> >> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked
> >> > in 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job
> >> > �1100 to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she
> >> > had to suffer the cost herself.
> >>
> >> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
> >
> > Yes, but a £600 excess, premiums loaded for the next 5 years
> > plus loss of ncd made it non viable
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. It's unfortunate that they can raise your
> rates even though a loss isn't at all your fault.
Its a no claim discount not a no blame discount unfortunately
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> > Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> >> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked
> >> > in 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job
> >> > �1100 to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she
> >> > had to suffer the cost herself.
> >>
> >> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
> >
> > Yes, but a £600 excess, premiums loaded for the next 5 years
> > plus loss of ncd made it non viable
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. It's unfortunate that they can raise your
> rates even though a loss isn't at all your fault.
--
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 6:35:02 PM1/4/14
to
am carring on my shoulder to the van , you think thats not my fault
!!!!!!!
--
steve robinson
Jan 4, 2014, 6:45:02 PM1/4/14
to
Tim Watts wrote:
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in
> uk.legal.moderated:
>
> >
> > The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
> > >
> >> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
> >> uk.legal.moderated:
> > >
> >>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay
> , >>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover
> through up >>> or left the rubble about.
> >>>
> >>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
> > >
> >> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
> > >
> >> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
> can >> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
> >
> > That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
> > support you?
> >
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is
> placing his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of
> the footpath.
>
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a
> pram scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how
> would a court view that?
Two wrongs do not make a right, just because the driver has broken the
> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in
> uk.legal.moderated:
>
> >
> > The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
> > >
> >> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
> >> uk.legal.moderated:
> > >
> >>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay
> , >>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover
> through up >>> or left the rubble about.
> >>>
> >>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
> > >
> >> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
> > >
> >> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you
> can >> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
> >
> > That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
> > support you?
> >
>
> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is
> placing his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of
> the footpath.
>
> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a
> pram scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how
> would a court view that?
law doesnt mean they are no longer protected by law.
If the pram could have been taken around another route no matter if its
inconvienient or not then thats the action that should have been taken.
--
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 4, 2014, 7:10:03 PM1/4/14
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would
>>not be at increased risk of mishaps.
>
> So if someone is speeding and someone else negligently crashes
> into them, they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened
> if they hadn't been breaking the law?
If it was breaking the law that created or contributed to the risk,
>>Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would
>>not be at increased risk of mishaps.
>
> So if someone is speeding and someone else negligently crashes
> into them, they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened
> if they hadn't been breaking the law?
then I'd think that would be contributory negligence.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Syd Rumpo
Jan 4, 2014, 7:00:03 PM1/4/14
to
If I stand, teeth bared, in an active timber yard...
But that's just silly. How about if I place many valuable fragile items
in you road? Should I not bear even the smallest scintilla of
responsibly should you knock one over?
You can't just place something valuable unguarded in a public place then
put the entire onus onto the public for its protection. If you don't
look after your toys, they'll likely get broken. Or was my mum wrong?
Cheers
--
Syd
Percy Picacity
Jan 4, 2014, 7:20:06 PM1/4/14
to
In article <MPG.2d32615b4...@News.Individual.NET>,
I do not think any court would find that the danger to the car negated
the right of the children to pass and repass on the public highway.
They do have a duty of care, but I don't think a court is going to set
that duty very high. And certainly is not going to say they are
debarred from using the highway because their journey isn't important.
--
Percy Picacity
the right of the children to pass and repass on the public highway.
They do have a duty of care, but I don't think a court is going to set
that duty very high. And certainly is not going to say they are
debarred from using the highway because their journey isn't important.
--
Percy Picacity
Cash
Jan 4, 2014, 7:35:02 PM1/4/14
to
me a wrong answer (definitive or otherwise) over the 45 years I've been
dealing with him I must disgree with you.
Cash
The Todal
Jan 4, 2014, 9:30:03 PM1/4/14
to
be sure he hasn't ever given you a wrong answer? Surely all you can say
is that you were not aware of any wrong answers. Either that, or you
went to the trouble of checking his advice with another, better lawyer.
Stuart Bronstein
Jan 5, 2014, 12:25:02 AM1/5/14
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>> Legal advice is not the same as having definitive answer - it
>>> is simply advice, an opinion.
>>
>> Obviously that is your opinion as a layman, but as my lawyer
>> has yet to give me a wrong answer (definitive or otherwise)
>> over the 45 years I've been dealing with him I must disgree
>> with you.
>
> Your lawyer sounds more infallible than the average lawyer. How
> can you be sure he hasn't ever given you a wrong answer? Surely
> all you can say is that you were not aware of any wrong answers.
> Either that, or you went to the trouble of checking his advice
> with another, better lawyer.
When it comes to trials, half of lawyers are wrong - or at least on
>>> Legal advice is not the same as having definitive answer - it
>>> is simply advice, an opinion.
>>
>> Obviously that is your opinion as a layman, but as my lawyer
>> has yet to give me a wrong answer (definitive or otherwise)
>> over the 45 years I've been dealing with him I must disgree
>> with you.
>
> Your lawyer sounds more infallible than the average lawyer. How
> can you be sure he hasn't ever given you a wrong answer? Surely
> all you can say is that you were not aware of any wrong answers.
> Either that, or you went to the trouble of checking his advice
> with another, better lawyer.
the losing side.
Giving good advice is not the same as perfect or infallible advice.
Most of the time the advice is never tested, so there is really no
way to tell how perfect it was.
The practical test, of course, is whether the advice led to a
relatively satisfactory result without litigation, which occurs most
of the time whether the advice was good or bad.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Yellow
Jan 4, 2014, 9:45:02 PM1/4/14
to
In article <key-49E9D8.0...@news.altopia.com>,
k...@under.the.invalid says...
I was not suggesting a ban, but instead noted that playing beside a
parked car is not a necessity.
Out of interest as you bring it up, do children have a legal right to
playing on the pavement? And if so, how do their rights sit with the
rights of others using the pavement to, for example, travel along it?
k...@under.the.invalid says...
parked car is not a necessity.
Out of interest as you bring it up, do children have a legal right to
playing on the pavement? And if so, how do their rights sit with the
rights of others using the pavement to, for example, travel along it?
Roland Perry
Jan 5, 2014, 4:45:29 AM1/5/14
to
In message <XnsA2AB84FA671EFs...@130.133.4.11>, at
21:10:05 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Stuart Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com>
remarked:
strikes and you are out" clause) and generally a windscreen crack/chip
repair won't affect the discount.
--
Roland Perry
21:10:05 on Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Stuart Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com>
remarked:
>>> > My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked
>>> > in 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job
>>> > £1100 to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she
>>> > had to suffer the cost herself.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
>>
>> Yes, but a £600 excess, premiums loaded for the next 5 years
>>> > in 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job
>>> > £1100 to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she
>>> > had to suffer the cost herself.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
>>
>> plus loss of ncd made it non viable
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. It's unfortunate that they can raise your
>rates even though a loss isn't at all your fault.
Some companies offer protected no-claims bonuses (but often with a "two
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. It's unfortunate that they can raise your
>rates even though a loss isn't at all your fault.
strikes and you are out" clause) and generally a windscreen crack/chip
repair won't affect the discount.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Jan 5, 2014, 5:00:07 AM1/5/14
to
them by the client.
--
Tim Watts
Jan 5, 2014, 5:10:03 AM1/5/14
to
On Sunday 05 January 2014 02:45 Yellow wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
> Out of interest as you bring it up, do children have a legal right to
> playing on the pavement? And if so, how do their rights sit with the
> rights of others using the pavement to, for example, travel along it?
Does the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" not apply?
> Out of interest as you bring it up, do children have a legal right to
> playing on the pavement? And if so, how do their rights sit with the
> rights of others using the pavement to, for example, travel along it?
Roland Perry
Jan 5, 2014, 5:30:03 AM1/5/14
to
In message <xn0iwosg...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
10:00:07 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
rather than merely relying on information that's been volunteered. At
which point the skill (which can vary a lot from lawyer to lawyer) is in
asking the right questions.
--
Roland Perry
10:00:07 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
>Any advice given by a lawyer is only as good as the infomation given to
>them by the client.
Although the advice can often be improved if the lawyer asks questions,
>them by the client.
rather than merely relying on information that's been volunteered. At
which point the skill (which can vary a lot from lawyer to lawyer) is in
asking the right questions.
--
Roland Perry
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jan 5, 2014, 5:00:15 AM1/5/14
to
On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 17:00:03 +0000, Tim Watts <tw+u...@dionic.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday 04 January 2014 13:45 steve robinson wrote in
>uk.legal.moderated:
>
>
>> You could of course call the police and report the obstruction.
>
>Who would do exactly nothing...
The last street I lived on only had room for parking cars on one side
as it was built before cars existed. We had regular visits from the
police checking for cars parked on the pavement. It was always due to
a referral from a traffic warden.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus neural network software http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
wrote:
>On Saturday 04 January 2014 13:45 steve robinson wrote in
>uk.legal.moderated:
>
>
>> You could of course call the police and report the obstruction.
>
>Who would do exactly nothing...
The last street I lived on only had room for parking cars on one side
as it was built before cars existed. We had regular visits from the
police checking for cars parked on the pavement. It was always due to
a referral from a traffic warden.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software http://www.npsnn.com
EasyNN-plus neural network software http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN prediction software http://www.swingnn.com
steve robinson
Jan 5, 2014, 7:50:03 AM1/5/14
to
--
Mary J. Wolstenholme
Jan 5, 2014, 8:20:03 AM1/5/14
to
On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 23:52:53 +1100, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>It would come to a head If a disabled ancient went out on the road to
>get round it in their disability scooter and was cleaned up by a car.
>It used to be the bane of mums life dodging cars in their drive way
>blocking the footpath.
That happened to me last week. I was injured and taken to hospital. I
can't remember what happened as I was momentarily knocked out. The
scooter is a write off. The car driver claims she can't remember what
happened either. The police and the insurance companies are involved.
I'm filling the paperwork in now.
Mary
wrote:
>
>
>It would come to a head If a disabled ancient went out on the road to
>get round it in their disability scooter and was cleaned up by a car.
>It used to be the bane of mums life dodging cars in their drive way
>blocking the footpath.
That happened to me last week. I was injured and taken to hospital. I
can't remember what happened as I was momentarily knocked out. The
scooter is a write off. The car driver claims she can't remember what
happened either. The police and the insurance companies are involved.
I'm filling the paperwork in now.
Mary
Bill
Jan 5, 2014, 10:15:02 AM1/5/14
to
In message <XnsA2A95971C2EFCs...@130.133.4.11>, Stuart
Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> writes
>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
>> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
>> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie
>> on his own drive)
>
>Recently someone told me that someone parked a car dangerously close
>to his. After pulling out of his parking space (without incident),
>he left a note on the other car saying simply, "Sorry about the
>scratch on your car."
>
>Must have driven the other person crazy looking for a scratch.
I did something very similar, even saying that I didn't like the fact
that his red paint didn't match my white paint and it looked bad on my
car!
It was on a temporary sporting event site and I was sat in a cabin most
of the day and able to watch when he returned. It did drive him crazy,
he went over every inch of his car looking for the damage, of which
there was none of course. But he didn't park there for the remainder of
the event, so a good result for me :-)
At a similar event someone blocked in the sign writers access, they
printed, in reverse on "etched glass effect" transfers a few comments
about his parking skills, cleaned the windscreen and very carefully and
accurately applied the stickers, it took them ages and looked perfect.
The driver only noticed as he was about to drive off, it was readable
from inside and he got the message, he even smiled and apologised for
his parking.
Some times a humorous note can be more effective and less
confrontational than telling the person exactly what you really do think
of them.
>
--
Bill
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> writes
>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It would be a bugger if his car suffered a scratch (and not
>> necessarily from the kids). He may then just realise how
>> inconsiderate he is being and park his car in a safer place (ie
>> on his own drive)
>
>Recently someone told me that someone parked a car dangerously close
>to his. After pulling out of his parking space (without incident),
>he left a note on the other car saying simply, "Sorry about the
>scratch on your car."
>
>Must have driven the other person crazy looking for a scratch.
I did something very similar, even saying that I didn't like the fact
that his red paint didn't match my white paint and it looked bad on my
car!
It was on a temporary sporting event site and I was sat in a cabin most
of the day and able to watch when he returned. It did drive him crazy,
he went over every inch of his car looking for the damage, of which
there was none of course. But he didn't park there for the remainder of
the event, so a good result for me :-)
At a similar event someone blocked in the sign writers access, they
printed, in reverse on "etched glass effect" transfers a few comments
about his parking skills, cleaned the windscreen and very carefully and
accurately applied the stickers, it took them ages and looked perfect.
The driver only noticed as he was about to drive off, it was readable
from inside and he got the message, he even smiled and apologised for
his parking.
Some times a humorous note can be more effective and less
confrontational than telling the person exactly what you really do think
of them.
>
--
Bill
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Cash
Jan 5, 2014, 1:30:13 PM1/5/14
to
personal) to resolve a problem or simply to ensure certain transactions went
smoothly I have never been let down on the results, fees or service over
some 45 years.
That includes the handling of my late fathers affairs where his charges and
professionalism in dealing with everything from care problems, emergency EPA
registration (and family objections and interference when doing so - even to
the point where the Court of Prevention had to intervene), financial
problems and a rather fractious winding up fo his estate after his death,
where a certain female family member (his daughter) persisted in her
obnoxious and troublesome mood to the extent of even trying to stop the
funeral arrangements at the last minute.
I simply speak as I find, and having dealt with several lawyers (of other
people) during my working life, he's the best and most truthful that I have
dealt with - and if my hypothetical question in the post that started this
thread ever becomes factual, then my bum shall be polishing his office
chairs yet again.
Cash
GB
Jan 5, 2014, 3:10:02 PM1/5/14
to
On 04/01/2014 16:30, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> My daughter had some muppet key her car because she parked in
>> 'his' spot she had parked legally was going about her job œ1100
>> to fix. Said moron hadnt got a pot to piss in so she had to
>> suffer the cost herself.
>
> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
There are big costs involved in making a claim in this country. Things
>> suffer the cost herself.
>
> Shouldn't insurance cover that?
may be different in the USA.
Over here, a young driver may have an excess of £250-500. Plus loss of
no claims bonus can add £100s a year to premiums. For a young driver, it
may well be cheaper to pay £1100 herself.
Paul Rudin
Jan 6, 2014, 3:25:05 AM1/6/14
to
"Cash" <.............\\@...............//.com> writes:
> Let's put this way, everytime that I've had to use his services (business or
> personal) to resolve a problem or simply to ensure certain transactions went
> smoothly I have never been let down on the results, fees or service over
> some 45 years.
Perhaps one of the reasons why people are reluctant to embrace the idea
> Let's put this way, everytime that I've had to use his services (business or
> personal) to resolve a problem or simply to ensure certain transactions went
> smoothly I have never been let down on the results, fees or service over
> some 45 years.
of definitive answers is that the correctness of a piece of advice on a
given set of facts is not really known "definitely" until it is tested
in court - and you can sometimes get very odd decisions.
For example: presumably the Daily Star thought they had a pretty strong
case when they were sued for libel by Jeffrey Archer. The defence of
"justification" (i.e. that what they had said was true) looked good on
the evidence. Presumably they had opinion(s) from well regarded counsel
to that effect. And in a sense that advice was "right" on the evidence
available. But they still lost on the day.
Of course later on we had the whole perjury thing, but that was on the
basis of new evidence - it doesn't of itself explain how the court
reached the "wrong" result on the day. Mostly it was down to a rather
bizarre summing up by the trial judge, who seemed to be rather taken
with Mary Archer.
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:08 AM1/6/14
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 20:55:05 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:05 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>> Tim Watts wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>>>>> up or left the rubble about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>>
>>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> What difference does that make
>>
>> Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would not be at
>> increased risk of mishaps.
>
> So if someone is speeding and someone else negligently crashes into them,
> they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
> breaking the law?
Surely that depends on how relevant the speeding is to the crash.
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 20:55:05 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:05 steve robinson wrote in
>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>> Tim Watts wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through
>>>>> up or left the rubble about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>>
>>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>
>>> What difference does that make
>>
>> Because if he wasn't breaking the law in that way, his car would not be at
>> increased risk of mishaps.
>
> So if someone is speeding and someone else negligently crashes into them,
> they can't complain because it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
> breaking the law?
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:38 AM1/6/14
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
If the driver has parked in a way to obscure the hazard, especially if
they've parked somewhere they shouldn't, then there is certainly an element
of blame attached to the driver.
> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay , its
> not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up or
> left the rubble about.
It's an accident, I've not been negligent.
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
Why should I be out of pocket when the accident is caused by the driver
obscuring a hazard?
they've parked somewhere they shouldn't, then there is certainly an element
of blame attached to the driver.
> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay , its
> not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up or
> left the rubble about.
> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
obscuring a hazard?
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:46 AM1/6/14
to
the matter to court and see what they say. My solicitor can't set a
precedent, the court can.
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:46 AM1/6/14
to
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> if they had behaved negligently. That would depend on the exact facts of
> the case so it is difficult to hypothesise. What you need to understand
> is that two wrongs do no make a right. The car driver may have been very
> stupid and may also have broken the law but that does not mean he is not
> protected against someone else's negligence.
Would a court be likely to consider it reasonable for a parent pushing a
pram, and quite possibly walking with other young children, to walk in a
busy road to avoid risk of damaging another's property?
> On 04/01/2014 21:00, Tim Watts wrote:
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>>
>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 20:15 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>>
>>> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 04 January 2014 19:40 steve robinson wrote in
>>>> uk.legal.moderated:
>>>>
>>>>> Accidents happen and unfortunatly if you cause the damage you pay ,
>>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>>>
>>>>> its not up to the driver, if you feel aggreived sue whover through up
>>>>> or left the rubble about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should the car owner be out of pocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because he shouldn;t be on the footpath.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've all done it - but if you actually obstruct the path then you can
>>>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>>>
>>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
>>> support you?
>>>
>>
>> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
>> his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
>>
>> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
>> scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
>> court view that?
>
> The Court would look at the actions of the person pushing the pram to see
>>>> hardly go crying to mummy if your car sustains a mishap.
>>>
>>> That appears to be your opinion; do you have any legal authority to
>>> support you?
>>>
>>
>> Well, the car owner is breaking a specific law and by doing so, is placing
>> his goods at increased risk of damage by the lawful users of the footpath.
>>
>> If a car parks on the pavement leaving say 2.5ft of clearance, and a pram
>> scratches the car accidently without malicious aforethough, how would a
>> court view that?
>
> if they had behaved negligently. That would depend on the exact facts of
> the case so it is difficult to hypothesise. What you need to understand
> is that two wrongs do no make a right. The car driver may have been very
> stupid and may also have broken the law but that does not mean he is not
> protected against someone else's negligence.
Would a court be likely to consider it reasonable for a parent pushing a
pram, and quite possibly walking with other young children, to walk in a
busy road to avoid risk of damaging another's property?
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:23 AM1/6/14
to
significantly it'd be cheaper to pay the excess each year!
Simon Finnigan
Jan 6, 2014, 4:30:38 AM1/6/14
to
complaint soon :-) ) offers two options - protected and guaranteed.
Protected gives you two claims, guaranteed keeps your discount regardless
of the number of claims. Of course bearing in mind that no-claims doesn't
mean the same price, rather a particular discount to a premium that can
itself go through the roof.
The Todal
Jan 6, 2014, 5:40:12 AM1/6/14
to
But another aspect is that in non-litigated cases you might never find
out whether or not your lawyer's advice was correct. He might for
instance say "you can cut down the tree on your land even though there
is a tree preservation order - don't worry". And you cut it down. And
the council doesn't notice, and there are no repercussions. But he might
nevertheless have given incorrect advice.
steve robinson
Jan 6, 2014, 8:20:03 AM1/6/14
to
your lack of vision
You cant blame drivers for the shadows or lack of sunlight
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages