Churchill The dog says "Oh No"

[Frederick]

Insurance company suggests if your child is run over by one of their insured motorists   . Its her fault if not wearing a high visibility jacket .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274372/Churchill-insurance-appeals-1m-payout-girl-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html#axzz2K9OGq0MM

[Russethouse]

I'm sympathetic to the young lady in this case, and I don't think Churchill are behaving very well,  but in general I think things have to change - pedestrians and cyclists need to have more responsibility. Walking on a dark road without a hi vis and wearing head phones is not sensible.

Cyclists without appropriate lights or clothing are common and two Saturdays ago we were going down a local road in broad daylight and dry weather and were overtaking a bike towing a trailer with a child in - we had plenty of room, but never the less the cyclist pulled out into our path, without warning - we avoided them, but were lucky not to be rear ended......the cyclist didn't bat an eye lid..... we were both quite shaken and couldn't believe the cyclists stupidity, especially with a child in one of those low towing contraptions.....

[idun]

And even in the 70's when we used to go out with our only friend who had a car, she would drive at 40mph on narrow winding country lanes, in her platform shoes. Fortunately we never encountered anyone walking, but as many of the lanes were only the equivilent of one lane wide, then she would not have avoided hitting anyone, what with the hedges.

I think that on narrow country lanes, motorists should perhaps drive very slowly, it is they with the lethal vehicule, not the cyclist or the pieton.

Now cyclists without proper lights or high viz drive me mad, they should be heavily fined. However, on narrow winding country lanes at night a driver still wouldn't be able to see round corners.

So for me, in the countryside, it is down to the car driver to reduce their speed and drive in accordance with the conditions and Churchill is wrong about this.

[Russethouse]

I think local authorities have a role to play, the driver in question was apparently well within the speed limit, so maybe that limit was set too high?

Of course the driver should only ever drive at the speed they feel comfortable with and on winding country lanes that wouldn't be very fast...

[Chancer]

He probably would have been safe driving at the posted limit but to attempt an overtake at that speed on a dark narrow country road is another thing.

 

[YCCMB]

I'm completely sympathetic to the poor girl and her family, but, hey, Daily Mail:

"Insurance Company Refuses to Pay Out" is about as big a surprise as "Pope Catholic" and "Bears P..icnic in Woods", isn't it?

The cyclist in front of me a couple of days back, wearing extra-large ear-covering headphones and wobbling from side to side as he searched for a track on his ipod wasn't wearing a high-viz jacket, either. Seems there's a lot of it about....

[Russethouse]

There used to be a saying' wear something white at night' which is a good idea, ESP now local authorities are economising on street lighting.

I've thought for a long time that cyclists should have more legal responsibility, it just isn't always the motorists fault .

Actually this case was featured on 'The Wright Stuff' yesterday.....

[Frederick]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I'm completely sympathetic to the poor girl and her family, but, hey, Daily Mail:

"Insurance Company Refuses to Pay Out" is about as big a surprise as "Pope Catholic" and "Bears P..icnic in Woods", isn't it?

The cyclist in front of me a couple of days back, wearing extra-large ear-covering headphones and wobbling from side to side as he searched for a track on his ipod wasn't wearing a high-viz jacket, either. Seems there's a lot of it about....

[/quote]

 Its also reported in the Horse and Hound ....Perhaps using their link would have been better accepted 

We are talking a 13 year old walking home in the dark here . Where I live in the UK the school bus off loads lots of children in the dark into country lanes .

In School uniforms  usually a dark blazer... Are all these kids going to lose the protection offered by motorists insurance policy's if Churchill win the appeal ?

If they win the whole population will have to go out after dark in High  Vis Jackets I suppose .

 I drive in the New Forest after dark most days  in some really narrow  lanes with  dark brown ponies free to wander .They have right of way at all times  in the dark in  a white out blizzard hit one its always going to be your fault  you only have your car insurer to fall back on ..

If Churchill are going to make  an issue over accepting  whats in the road after dark without  High Visibility markings   And make it affect a claim or not Perhaps  they might like to go for the New Forest and Dartmoor  pony owners and make them responsible for any claim costs if they dont  High Vis  dress up up their . animals ..... I know of one woman who thinks she has 63  and does not know where they are most of the year ... 

[Rabbie]

When I lived in Sweden most school children had reflectors attached to their outer clothing which madr it easier to see them. I even saw dog owners who had attaced these to their dog's leads. Anything which improves visibility can only be a good thing. I remember about twenty years ago one of the tabloids ran a campaign to get schoolchildren to use these reflectors.

There are some cyclists who seem to think that they have no need to comply with the law as regards lights etc and over the years I have seen several  completely without lights on a dark winter early morning. Luckily I have managed to avoid hitting them.

There have been court cases where the compensation has been reduced because the court has decided that the victim has contributed to the accident by not wearing a seat belt. In this case perhaps a slight reduction in the compensation might have been appropriate. As I don't know the full facts in this case I cannot say.

[Quillan]

Well after 24 hours more facts are coming out. At first I only had some sympathy for this girl and I did wonder what she was doing walking along a road in the dark. It now transpires she wasn't even on the road but walking along to verge abut 1M away from the road. This guy was so drunk he swerved, went off the road and on to the verge and then hit the girl. Yes of course it might have been prudent for the girl to wear a fluorescent jacket or belt but in all honestly it probably would not have made a difference. Possibly, as I understand it now, her greatest error was deciding she could not wait any longer for the parent who was going to collect  her and started walking home. Perhaps one could blame the parent but then the parent was delayed, the fault of which was not theirs. Perhaps we could blame the person who caused the delay to the parent. We could probably go on and on looking at alternatives to find fault. However in my mind the judge is correct, the guy was drunk, lost control of the car and mounted the verge striking the girl therefore the driver is 100% to blame, case closed.

[Rabbie]

Thanks for that update. She should get the full compensation.

[Frecossais]

I believe that in Denmark, any collision between a  pedestrian or cyclist and a car is always the fault of the motorist. This is because a car can be regarded as a lethal weapon.

IMO a motorist should be held responsible unless it can be proved that the pedestrian or cyclist has done something stupid or dangerous, because they do at times. But then motorists aren't perfect either, and speed is not the only criterion, inattention causes accidents.

[Pommier]

Isn't Churchill owned by Direct Line who are owned by the UK government?

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Quillan"]Well after 24 hours more facts are coming out. At first I only had some sympathy for this girl and I did wonder what she was doing walking along a road in the dark. It now transpires she wasn't even on the road but walking along to verge abut 1M away from the road. This guy was so drunk he swerved, went off the road and on to the verge and then hit the girl. Yes of course it might have been prudent for the girl to wear a fluorescent jacket or belt but in all honestly it probably would not have made a difference. Possibly, as I understand it now, her greatest error was deciding she could not wait any longer for the parent who was going to collect  her and started walking home. Perhaps one could blame the parent but then the parent was delayed, the fault of which was not theirs. Perhaps we could blame the person who caused the delay to the parent. We could probably go on and on looking at alternatives to find fault. However in my mind the judge is correct, the guy was drunk, lost control of the car and mounted the verge striking the girl therefore the driver is 100% to blame, case closed.[/quote]

Well Q that's the first time I have seen it mentioned that the driver was drunk. Which obviously changes the picture a lot.

Frederick, there are plenty of signs in the New Forest to make motorists aware there may well be ponies in the road, and frankly if children are walking on an unlit road, with no pavement at night surely it is in their own interests to wear something visible? No matter 99% of drivers may be careful, is it worth the risk that one isn't.? In addition wearing headphones makes you less traffic aware, with no pavement that is not a good thing.......surely it's just common sense?

Personally I think cyclists should have to wear hi vis jackets and helmets or risk having compensation claims reduced. They should also be prosecuted when they jump traffic lights or run into pedestrians when they cycle on the pavement.

Having said all that my feeling is that

Churchill behaved badly and should just pay up ( I thought being drunk affected the motorist policy?)

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Pommier"]Isn't Churchill owned by Direct Line who are owned by the UK government?[/quote]

 

Not owned by HMG now. Direct Line was floated last autumn.

[HoneySuckleDreams]

Richard Littlejohn has even got something to say about it today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2275260/Since-compulsory-wear-hi-viz.html#axzz2K9miYdiX

If the guy was drunk then that should be the end of it. Even the french legal system recognises the same point.

In this case, I don't think a Hi-Viz jacket would have made any difference. However, whenever I go out at night to walk the dog, or if I cycle at night, I will wear a reflective jacket. I want to give myself the best chance of survival I can...common sense really. One of my pet bug-bears at the moment is people who constantly wear head phones. Cycling in a big city whilst wearing headphones....do these people have a death wish? They should be fined for not being in control or something like that, they can only cause problems to other road users. Plus, you got the pedestrians, plugged into their phones, always looking down, being completely oblivious to what's going on around them. It's no suprise to me that the number of deaths of pedestrians, and children have seen the biggest increase, over the last two years has seen an increase.

 

 

[Russethouse]

Well I broke my own rule and read Littlejohn, and he didn't mention the driver being drunk either......

If, as Q says, the driver was drunk, I'm surprised that Churchill aren't claiming it invalidated the policy and left her to the hands of the MIB., unless his being drunk meant that he only had third party cover?

Some years ago my god daughter was the innocent victim in a hit and run accident, the owner of the car wouldn't say who was driving and my god daughter was left dealing with the MIB for compensation - she sustained a broken neck- it took ages and really lead to a period of depression as she kept coming up against the argument that as she was there she was partially to blame, even though all she had been doing was crossing the road in a well lit area.

I wonder If insurers have any idea of the damage they do by their 'games' ?

[Chancer]

[quote user="HoneySuckleDreams"]

One of my pet bug-bears at the moment is people who constantly wear head phones. Cycling in a big city whilst wearing headphones....do these people have a death wish? They should be fined for not being in control or something like that, they can only cause problems to other road users. Plus, you got the pedestrians, plugged into their phones, always looking down, being completely oblivious to what's going on around them. It's no suprise to me that the number of deaths of pedestrians, and children have seen the biggest increase, over the last two years has seen an increase.

Mine too and you can add joggers to that list as well, I am a runner and I hate having to run through town because of the way motorists think that the pavements are their private domain, squeeze past a car parked on the mavement and the driver is just as likely to open the door at the same moment, often deliberately, then there are the pedestrians that insist on walking side by side holding hands with the partner plus several poussettes if its a really wide footpath just so long as they can block it completely, the people transfixed on their mobiles of course and a new one only last week, I collided with a guy walking out of his front gate without looking who had a cagoule pulled over his head.

When I run the local marathon here 90% of the runners are wearing headphones, its very anti-social and the concept of a fun run like in the UK just does not exist, now on the day of a marathon their security is pretty much ensured by the completely over the top Gendarme control of the junctions routes etc like they do for a cycle race (hey they get loads of overtime for it) but they still wear their baladeurs when they are out training alone and have about as much road sense as a puppy that has escaped the family home, I am very very cautious when driving and there is a runner in the road, shame that others arent when the runner is me [:(]

 

[/quote]

[Chancer]

How did the government end up owning a successfull company like Direct Line?

Did they bail out RBS then?

[Rabbie]

From that article it seems that Churchill have not said "no" directly but are appealing the amount of the settlement. I hope that Bethany does get her full compensation as she is obviously not at fault here since she was on the verge and not on the road. Churchill should pay her and then sue the drunken motorist who should not have been in his car.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Well I broke my own rule and read Littlejohn, and he didn't mention the driver being drunk either...... If, as Q says, the driver was drunk, I'm surprised that Churchill aren't claiming it invalidated the policy and left her to the hands of the MIB., unless his being drunk meant that he only had third party cover? Some years ago my god daughter was the innocent victim in a hit and run accident, the owner of the car wouldn't say who was driving and my god daughter was left dealing with the MIB for compensation - she sustained a broken neck- it took ages and really lead to a period of depression as she kept coming up against the argument that as she was there she was partially to blame, even though all she had been doing was crossing the road in a well lit area. I wonder If insurers have any idea of the damage they do by their 'games' ?[/quote]

I can't answer your question about the type of insurance. The same newspaper that the original link came from said he was drunk. The DD case and insurance case are too totally different cases. The only way they link together is because the judge (or perhaps magistrate) said he was drunk and was 100% liable for the accident. He was fined and his licence taken away. If you search you should be able to find it. That of course is all separate to the insurance claim except for the fact that he was held 100% liable for the accident from a criminal/police point of view.

If the family have received interim payments then the insurance company have made an offer already. What this company is doing is not different from all UK insurance companies in this type of case. Their expenses for the case will be quite high, the value of the claim is also based on many things, the persons career and salary expectations if they can't work again which obviously is neigh on impossible given the girls age but there is still a standard calculation they can employ. How long will she live, how much care will she require. All this is calculated before the offer is made. The value of the offer is also based on the annual cost of looking after the girl and how much income is generated by the money when it is invested. The sums of money we are talking about are not given directly to the family. The current issue is trying to get the family to accept the offer, if they don't and the case goes to court it will drag on for five years plus and if at the end of it the damages awarded are one penny less (literally) than what was offered the family has to pay the legal costs of both sides. It is in short a form of bullying by the insurance company. Of course if they get 1 penny more than the offer the insurance company picks up all the costs. So what this lot are trying to do is to half the liability which means that not only will the family loose half the claim but it may well then fall below the insurance companies last offer to settle and will save them a shed load of money in costs. I should add that I am in no way legally qualified but it is an area Mrs 'Q' works in from time to time and I am just repeating what I have heard from her over the years.