An insurance company tries to sue the parent of a child their insured ran over.
In the judgement she said Caine, who had briefly left his cousins in the playground and wanted to get back to them, was running diagonally towards a zebra crossing when he saw the car and misjudged its capacity to stop in time.
The driver was travelling at 40mph in an urban area and failing to pay attention on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. The two most vulnerable groups are the young and the elderly and it is the driver’s responsibility to pay attention and to plan their drive accordingly. Children running out into the road in an urban environment is a foreseeable risk and the driver should adjust their speed accordingly and be keeping a careful watch for them particularly on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. This incident could have been avoided if the driver was driving with due care and attention.
She said: ‘No matter how careful a parent is, it is impossible for children to be completely protected from risk,’ she ruled.
‘Keeping children cooped up and not allowing them to experiment with small freedoms carries its own risk. There is a difficult balance to be struck.
‘Sadly, when something goes catastrophically wrong, a parent may look back and agonise over the choice they made.
‘The fact that – with hindsight – they would have taken a different course is far from establishing that their original choice was wrong, still less that they were negligent.’
She added: ‘This was an eight-year-old boy, trying to cross at a zebra crossing, who encountered a speeding car whose driver had just been warned he might hit someone.’The judge said it would be “wholly wrong” to find Mrs Ellis blameworthy.
Quite right. A sensible ruling and Equity Red Star merely show us just how reprehensible the insurance industry really is – not to mention their insured who was reckless and shouldn’t be in charge of a road vehicle.
I was a passenger on a bus that managed to nearly unseat me when the driver braked to avoid a cyclist who had been riding on the left-hand pavement but then abruptly took the diagonal to place himself on the zebra crossing right in front of the bus.
Does no-one teach the ‘green cross code’ or its equivalent nowadays? Safety is layered; yes I should look out for you but you should look out for me.
Situational awareness is a skill that every road user should develop and then they won’t need to make excuses ‘afterwards’.
Yes, indeed. However, the very young and the very old tend to lack that situational awareness, so there is more emphasis on the driver.
What is truly tragic in this case is that the article does not name the insurance company who brought this case.
Calling the entire insurance business ‘reprehensible’ really is going too far. Mostly they are OK and provide a valuable service. There are always bad apples and there are always good apples making dumb mistakes.
imho their name “Equity Red Star” suggests why they are a bad apple.
As for naming the insurance company, far better to name the lawyers who took this idiot position to court. The insurance company acted on advice. What sort of fool gave it?
If the driver had not been speeding, I would completely agree with the attempt to hold the parent responsible for the actions of the child. Careless children cause accidents with regular monotony, but there’s never any consequences for the damage they cause. Your insurance company can even be billed for the ambulance, even if it’s in no way your fault.
It’s just a pity the driver was speeding
No, sorry. The child was approaching a pedestrian crossing. A driver should always expect a pedestrian to cross at a crossing and be slowing down on the approach and in a residential area should always be expecting children to step out into the road. As I said, it’s a foreseeable risk and it is beholden on the driver to drive accordingly. There’s no excuse here. The parent was right to allow the child a degree of autonomy. Mine did and I expect yours did, too.
I did say ‘If he wasn’t speeding’. But I’m not sure I beleive a word of that about approaching a crossing. He ran into the road. A parent will often make out their child was doing no wrong
Anyway, mu point is that there are no consequences for the actions of careless children and there should be. It might make parents start teaching their kids road safety again, rather than the current culture of blame everything on the driver
Your point is lost in this instance as it simply doesn’t apply. When I was growing up, like my peers, I was allowed out onto the public roads. My parents weren’t negligent in this as they taught me basic road safety as this parent had.
I’m inclined to believe the judge on this one. The crossing is a matter of evidence in the court, so the driver should have been paying attention – the passenger in the car who warned the driver would have disputed it if there was no crossing or the child wasn’t near it.
Also, regardless of the crossing, this was a residential area. The Highway Code is clear on the matter of pedestrians being vulnerable. The very young and the elderly are the least likely to have well developed situational awareness and it is beholden on the driver to adjust their driving accordingly.
There is no evidence that this parent was in any way negligent. The decision to try and sue for negligence was appalling. Reprehensible.
Unfortunately, all too often that is the case. I see some dreadful driving out on the roads on a daily basis. I was nearly run off a roundabout a few days back by a driver who swung across lanes without bothering to check. This is not unusual. Also, drivers are in charge of a potentially dangerous machine – of course they must bear the burden of ensuring they don’t kill or injure pedestrians.
Bucko 2 Longrider 0
Bucko wins in away match.
LR needs to leave his “teacher/instructor” day job at work.
Nope. See below. The parent had taught the child the green cross code. That he had lapsed does not constitute negligence on her part. The driver was entirely to blame in this instance. You’re right – I teach this stuff for a living, not just road safety but heath and safety law, so I understand the principles of negligence, due diligence and tort. The driver is entirely to blame here. No one else. The court judgement was correct. The driver is the one in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle, therefore the responsibility not to kill someone with it rests with them.
Clearly I don’t, given these responses.
I find it disturbing that both you and Bucko seem not to grasp these basic principles as you both drive. Time for you both to revisit the Highway Code, perhaps?
I find it disturbing that keep keep reverting back to ‘This instance’, when I’ve said repeatedly that I do not support this driver, because he was speeding, I support the idea of children being held accountable when the driver isn’t at fault. Once again – when the driver isn’t at fault
I haven’t ignored that point. However, you persist with the notion of the parent being negligent. She wasn’t.
This parent had not taught their child basic road safety as it ran into the road. Running diagonally towards a crossing is not road safety. Stopping at the crossing, looking both ways and waiting until the traffic stops is road safety
I’m not sure how you can defend the child here
But my point, as I’ve said, is not about the actions of the driver, it’s about the lack of consequences for the actions of careless children
I would welcome more cases like this going to court, as long as the accident is no fault of the driver
There’s this old saying about when in a hole… You are in one right now.
As you can see that says it all. The parent taught her child the green cross code. That he lapsed in a moment of inattention does not constitute negligence on her part. The negligence here is entirely on the driver. It always will be and that is as it should be.
So, no, we do not need any more cases such as this one. The judgement was correct. If drivers take the proper care and attention when driving – slowing down in residential areas – then children running out into the road won’t be a problem, because the driver will be able to take the relevant avoiding action because they should be expecting it in the first place.
I don’t think there was any mention of the parent teaching their child the green cross code and I don’t think the words ‘lapsed in a moment of inattention’ were used either. Where are you getting these ideas from?
And you’re still fixating on this driver. If someone drives carefully and follows all that crap you’ve posted above, they can still easily run into a child who runs out into the road, as the one in this story did. It happens with regular monotony.
The point I’ve been labouring is that we can’t always blame the driver when it’s the childs fault and there should be consequenses for children who cause accidents
Address those points. Not what this driver did and not what the highway code says, as that is not relevant to a child causing an accident that is no fault of a careful driver
I am not fixating here. I am responding to your points. Again, when in a hole… You just got your JCB out.
The judge referred to the parent teaching the child the green cross code. The child was approaching the crossing – running at an angle, suggesting a lapse in attention. It was you who made a thing about this point, not me. I merely pointed out that on approaching a crossing, the driver – all drivers – should prepare to stop.
The point about the Highway Code is relevant because you persist in sidestepping the points it makes. It is beholden on the driver to avoid hitting pedestrians. Yes, sometimes they step out suddenly. It is up to the driver to take sufficient care to anticipate this. If you hit a child with your car, then it is your fault because you have failed to adequately anticipate the probability and take the relevant action – i.e. slow down such that you can stop. It ain’t perfect, but I see very little of this on the roads on a daily basis.
You don’t think that death or serious injury is sufficient?
I have addressed those points. In detail. The Highway Code does cover it – it is the driver’s responsibility to plan their drive and anticipate the risk accordingly.
“The judge referred to the parent teaching the child the green cross code.”
I’ve re-read it and point conceded. Now what response do you want? ‘Fat lot of good it did him’, or ‘His parent Lying’. Because at the end of the day, the first time he’s out playing on his own and he runs into the road
I am not sidestepping the highway code. You are mis-representing it. You are saying that the driver is always at fault, regardless of the circumstances. That is patently absurd in any reality
“If you hit a child with your car, then it is your fault because you have failed to adequately anticipate ”
No, not at all. In some cases that will be true and in others it will not. Drivers are not omnipotent and cannot forsee everything. To expect that is again, patently absurd
“You don’t think that death or serious injury is sufficient?”
I’m not talking about revenge here. I’m talking about costs incurred by the driver or the insurer. If the accident is not the drivers fault, that should be taken into account, as should the liability of the parent and child
“it is the driver’s responsibility to plan their drive and anticipate the risk accordingly”
Anticipate, yes, where possible. It’s very often not possible to anticipate. It’s very often no fault of the driver. The driver or insurer may still incur costs, even when not at fault
I stand by my reasoning
I’m clearly not going to convince you here, so I’ll make one closing point.
Any case that goes to court, the Highway Code will be the base point – did the driver follow it?
Yes, there will be rare cases where no one is at fault. I had a school-friend killed many years ago. She went under the wheels of a bus. Not the bus driver’s fault as she was stationary sitting on her bike by the side of the road. As the bus drew alongside, she lost her balance and went under it. A tragic accident. Should her parents have been sued? Of course not.
There will be very few cases where a driver is unable to anticipate if they plan their drive accordingly. That is the point the Highway Code is making. That’s the whole point about adjusting speed to the conditions – and that does not necessarily mean the speed limit. In a residential area, children are a foreseeable risk and the drive should be adjusted accordingly. Therefore a no-fault accident is a very rare likelihood.
The point about compulsory third party insurance is that the driver is the one in charge of the potentially dangerous machine, therefore it is right and proper that they are insured. If they hit and kill a pedestrian, the balance will always be in favour of the pedestrian. This is right and proper.
So, I stand by my case, too. No more attempts by insurers to sue parents in the event of a driver killing their child.
Yep, stalemate declared. I’m glad we didn’t have this debate down the pub. We’d be so shitfaced by now
I agree on the drivers duty of care, but not on the number of no fault cases. I think there are a lot more than you imagine. Kids can and do get in the way of cars extremely fast
I think at the end of the day though, you’ll get your wish about these cases and I won’t get mine
Unfortunately
Bucko 12 : LR 0 – away win for Bucko.
LR bogged down by team rules and regulations. Bucko pragmatism wins.
LR loves his big German lignite bucket digger.
There are occasions when you talk utter cockrot Pcar. This is one of them. I’m not bogged down at all. I understand how to drive without killing pedestrians. Those rules are based on pragmatic common sense. Bucko’s position is based upon a no fault on the part of the driver. In order for that to happen, they would have to be following the Highway Code. If they followed the Highway Code, the likelihood of a no fault incident is vanishingly small.
You cannot hold the driver to blame in all cases, just for being there. Apocryphal stories about taxi passengers in Saudi come to mind.
True story: I was driving a carload to a wedding when a goat leapt over a hedge and landed in front of me. I braked and got the speed down to a low enough level that the dent in the car was small, and the goat was still well enough to run down the road to the junction ahead, where an HGV completed the job.
I consider myself a safe and responsible driver, with a large awareness of my responsibility to other road users, and defensive driving.
There was no visibility through the hedge, so no way to have gained any earlier warning of the imminent event. So in what way could I, the driver, be responsible for this collision, apart from existing? True, I was not proceeding at walking pace preceded by a man with a red flag!…
But I have relived this event many times, and cannot see anyway in which, I the driver, could have avoided the collision, or done any better to mitigate the outcome.
It seems to me the fault was entirely by the goat’s owner who had failed to secure their animal safely in the field, allowing it to escape & endanger road users. It was extremely fortunate the HGV on the main road did not swerve in an attempt to avoid the goat, and instead marmalise an oncoming car.
The insurance company has a duty to its owners to minimise their loss by seeking restitution from those at fault.
It’s just a pity, that in this case of the OT, their judgement was so obviously flawed. 100% on the driver indeed.
Yes, there will be shit happens cases. I hit a deer in similar circumstances – on the M4. My insurer treated it as an own fault accident as no one else was involved. However, children aren’t likely to be playing on the M4. They are likely to be playing in a residential area and it is up to the driver to pay attention and be travelling at low speed. If they are doing so, the no-fault scenario is vanishingly small.
Ahem, as JuliaM has covered
Children do play on motorways iirc M5 M6
Entirely different situation. This is an outlier. Your point?
Point: children do what you said they don’t. Your “outlier” is disingenuous.
Sigh… How many children play on the motorway? The fact that it made the news is evidence that it is rare. Therefore my point about it being an outlier stands. I never said that children don’t ever do this. Just as I never said they don’t ever run out into the road. That’s why drivers should be following the Highway Code. Stop digging.
Rare? Like RoP Child Rape Gangs?
No news doesn’t mean not happening. BBC especially is a prime example of bias by omission – eg DNC’s Wasserman Schultz
Not digging. Levelling.
I’ve grown weary of this nonsense. Yes you are digging. You have gone on an absurd tangent and are playing semantics in an attempt to make a ridiculous argument work.
We live in a common law country. Drivers of motor vehicles have a duty of care not to cause harm to other road users. That’s it. As for children playing on the motorway, your own experience should tell you how vanishingly rare this is.
Now, please, stop here before you make yourself look completely foolish.
@LR
Duty of care ie responsibility applies both ways. You, perhaps due to your job, almost always blame the road user and rarely the pedestrian that decides to put themselves at risk by venturing onto the road.
Tiresome for you? Quite possibly as you never show strength by saying “OK, thought X, I was wrong”.
Foolish me? Nope: rational and responsible – pavements are for pedestrians, roads for vehicles.
Even zebra, pelican etc crossings should not be assumed a risk-free “right” by pedestrians, self-preservation should always mean follow green cross code.
Law may say pedestrian had priority; reality says pedestrian vs vehicle is KSI pedestrian.
Too stupid for self-preservation? No probs, posthumous Darwin Award.
As an aside; came across this today in a YT vid (no comment):
LGBT – Let God Burn Them
Read. The. Highway. Code.
I’m not in the habit of denying reality. I am not wrong here, so I’m not going to admit something that is not true. One of the downsides of my job is that I come across people who think that holding a driving licence entitles them to lecture me endlessly while demonstrating their own woeful lack of roadcraft knowledge. This has been an example. You are wrong here and have used every rhetorical trick in the book to try and deny that. For example:
I’m not going to waste time explaining what is wrong with this statement. Merely to refer you to the Highway Code, which it would seem you have long since forgotten.
There you go again, building a strawman. I never said anything at all about risk free rights.
And again. I have not suggested otherwise. Merely stated correctly that the onus is on the vehicle driver as they are in charge of a potentially dangerous machine and that they should drive according to the Highway Code and anticipate children stepping into the road.
I’ve asked you on more than one occasion to stop digging with this one and you have chosen to ignore me.
You are wrong here. Accept it and move on. I’m taking the unusual course of forcing the issue and closing comments on this discussion as my patience with it has finally run out with your pigheaded pursuit of this to the point of reducto absurdum.
Enough already.