Pedestrian Walks Out In Front Of Car. Who's Fault

[owenbowen]

On a dark night on an unlit road, a man dressed head to foot in black stepped out in front of my son's car. Luckily not too seriously injured. My son reported the accident to the police and offered to take the man to hospital which he declined although he did require treatment for a dislocated shoulder. At the time he admitted it was his fault as he had never looked to see what traffic was coming. However now, just under the 3 year deadline he is suing my son. My son's insurance company say he just has to accept that he is at fault because that's how it is if a car hits a pedestrian. This doesn't seem right to me can anyone clarify please.

[RATTER15]

Surely if the guy walked out and not giving you time to take any preventative action to swerve or to brake its his fault.

[Hopkirk]

If the insurance company are happy to pay, then I don't see a big problem.

[Canary42]

Insurance companies are notorious for just giving in (and jacking up policy holder's premium as a result) rather than a costly court case. INSTRUCT them to contest it and see what they say.

[paul1763]

wouldn't the police have some a statement from driver and pedestrian? lf so, get copies and forward to insurance company,knowing that they don't like paying out on claims i'm sure they'd rather fight it if they've got the pedestrians "admittance of guilt" in their hands

[chrissa1]

Hang on!! He has waited 3 years to bring this action? How can he remember your name, Reg No etc? It must be a Claims Company, but where on earth do they get the information to prove it?

If he walked into a wall, would he sue the council for building it there??

[Davethedog]

If the pedestrian wasn't on a crossing or designated crossing place, even in broad daylight, he is at fault. Tell your son to get independent advice if the insurance company fail to contest it.

[chrissa1]

Hear, hear.

[Smowball]

Agree with last 2 posts - sounds more like a claim company to me.

[EDDIE51]

The police would have a record of the accident so the pedestrian only had to ask them for your son's details if he had no record himself.
As to blame , well it may be decided that the pedestrian was to blame , but it will not be 100% blame as your son DID hit a pedestrian so has at least a share of the blame. If this goes to court the pedestrian will be awarded damages but the amount may be reduced by say 50% ( if he is held to be 50% to blame)
Your son has no choice but to let the insurance company sort it out. They will obviously try to pay the mimimum they can by getting as much of the blame as possible switched to the pedestian. There still will be an award of compensation though . As pedestrians have no insurance your son's insurance will pay what ever is awarded. Sorry but that's the way it works.
The fact that the pedestrian originally said it was his fault will not effect the claim, he will still be awarded damages but will not get 100% of what is awarded.

[jamesbishop911]

that is the real happenings nowadays, even if its the man fault, he can sued ur son because he was hit. Just like the other case i knew, a hotel barman refused to give a drunk man his car keys. When the drunk man became abusive and threatening, the barman reluctantly returned the keys. The drunk man jumped into his car, drove off, and went straight into a pole. He was injured. He sued the hotel for giving him back his keys when he was drunk. Which is actually it was the drunk man fault. And guess what? He won the case. I dont know if the man intentionally did himself to get hit.

[Davethedog]

Eddie so if your driving totaly legaly along a road and a pedestrioan just walks off the pavement in front of you, your partly to blame?

buls*it

[Bazile]

Irrespective of who anyone thinks is to blame , I'm afraid it all depends on what the insurer decide to do in response to the claim - i.e fight it / come to some compromise / pay up fully

[chrissa1]

In the late 60's I was driving my father's car, a tank of a Ford Zodiac along an urban dual carriageway at the correct speed. I saw a woman with a pram standing waiting to cross and as I got to about 20' from her, she started running across in front of me.
I slammed the brakes on and, steering to the left, I missed the large pram and hit her. The pram rolled slowly across the road and tipped up on its end. The baby was unhurt but the lady had her pelvis broken.

She stated to the Police that it was her fault and she didn't know why she had run out.

I can remember my Father being concerned about guilt, as he was a Solicitor but the Police decided that I was not at fault and I couldn't have foreseen that she would run out.

I know this was in a time when the "compensation" culture didn't exist but I as the driver was found Not to be guilty and Not at fault.

[EDDIE51]

The questioner has already answered this '' My son's insurance company say he just has to accept that he is at fault because that's how it is if a car hits a pedestrian'' The same applies if a car hits a cyclist , it is always the car driver who has to pay out as cyclists and pedestrians do not need insurance. The only variable is the % the driver has to pay, the pedestrian may be held for example 90% to blame so the driver pays 10% of the total award.The award could be £100,000 so the driver will have to pay £10,000 ( or his insurance will) .
The driver will not be charged in this case but if the exact same thing had happened in daylight the driver would probably be charged with 'driving without due care' aas well as paying out. You are not free to hit pedestrians even at night on an unlit road , the fact that the pedestrian was hit means that a % of the blame must be with the driver . A 'perfect' driver does not hit pedestrians even at night on an unlit road.
By the way I nearly did the same thing, I was driving on a dark country road at night when I just picked out a black shape ahead. I slowed down, luckily, as it turned out to be a black horse with a rider right in the middle of the road at 3am . It was only because I was driving a Volvo with excellent headlights on full beam that I saw him at all, a lot of cars would not have had lights good enough to have spotted it.

[boxtops]

The pedestrian has 3 years to bring his claim (and it's three years either from the time the injury occured, or from when he became aware of the extent of his injuries). Did your son report it to his insurance company at the time? - just in case a PI claim arose? It would have been sensible to do so, it wouldn't go against his record unless a claim was made.

[dotty.]

last november a bloke from the next village threw himself into the path of an HGV lorry and was killed, not instantly as he took a while to die in the road, he was still alive when I got there and the ambulance arrived just as he died. The lorry driver was unhurt but very badly shocked. The HGV nwas travelling downhill at 40mph, not a cat in hells chance of stopping and not expecting the pedestrian to jump in front of him. Wonder if the driver will be sued by the jumpers family?

[joeluke]

How does the advert go?

"Had an accident in the last 3 years that wasn't your fault?" "Then call................................."

We live in a blame society, obviously this man has been recently swayed by one of these adverts as it's taken him so long to sue your son

[boxtops]

Friends of mine were driving along in the city, under an underpass, when a bloke jumped off the wall above them and landed on their bonnet. When they tried to claim from him for the damage to their car, his insurance company asked them why they thought it was the man's fault.....

[tamborine]

The original police report would support your son's statement.