Churchill refusing to pay out

Good that they have got adverse publicity for it though. Contributory negligence? How many of us ever wear high viz when walking on country roads - drivers should drive slowly enough to be able to stop within the distance they can actually SEE.
 
how bloody ridiculus!! so basically what they are saying is that all pedestrians should wear hi-vis? are they kidding? the amount of people who walk down country lanes without hi-vis on - yes it would be wise to wear it but it isnt the law therefore how can they get out of it? it is however against the law to run someone over therefore the insurance should pay out! thats made me really angry!
 
StormyMoments said:
how bloody ridiculus!! so basically what they are saying is that all pedestrians should wear hi-vis? are they kidding? the amount of people who walk down country lanes without hi-vis on - yes it would be wise to wear it but it isnt the law therefore how can they get out of it? it is however against the law to run someone over therefore the insurance should pay out! thats made me really angry!
Click to expand...

We do all have a duty of care to ourselves. If you are wearing dark clothing, carrying no light, and walking down a narrow country road with blind bends and no footpath, then you are guilty of contributory negligence if a car hits you.

The dispute is over whether a 13 year old girl is old enough to be guilty of contributory negligence. If she was an adult then the payout would have already been reduced.

Are you a driver? It is perfectly possible in conditions like that to hit someone, I have myself had a number of near misses because you simply cannot see them. The guy is only guilty at all because he was doing an excessive speed.
 
Last edited:
JillA said:
Good that they have got adverse publicity for it though. Contributory negligence? How many of us ever wear high viz when walking on country roads - drivers should drive slowly enough to be able to stop within the distance they can actually SEE.
Click to expand...

But you can't see them until you are on top of them, no matter what speed you are doing. Dark clothes in the dark on a blind bend - they are invisisble until the last possible moment.
 
cptrayes said:
We do all have a duty of care to ourselves. If you are wearing dark clothing, carrying no light, and walking down a narrow country road with blind bends and no footpath, then you are guilty of contributory negligence if a car hits you.

The dispute is over whether a 13 year old girl is old enough to be guilty of contributory negligence. If she was an adult then the payout would have already been reduced.

Are you a driver? It is perfectly possible in conditions like that to hit someone, I have myself had a number of near misses because you simply cannot see them. The guy is only guilty at all because he was doing an excessive speed.
Click to expand...

He hit a person on a verge overtaking in the dark on a country road at fifty miles per hour you should not be taking to the verge to overtake going at fifty.
 
Goldenstar said:
He hit a person on a verge overtaking in the dark on a country road at fifty miles per hour you should not be taking to the verge to overtake going at fifty.
Click to expand...

I'd want to see the "verge" before condemning him as 100% guilty - was it 1 foot wide or 10 feet? (The Telegraph report makes no mention of a verge, the Mail does but they often embellish stories to make them more emotive.) In a very narrow road with blind bends, he swerved to avoid an oncoming car. Yes, he was doing 50 (in a 60 limit) on a road that the judge said that was too fast for. But if she had high viz on, or a torch, and been able to be seen, and had not had music playing in her ears and been able to hear him, she would quite likely not have been hit. That's the argument on which they have been allowed to appeal. I suspect they won't win, on the basis that she is a child. But if she'd been an adult I think the payment may well have been reduced.
 
Last edited:
That is plain silly.....seriously if a person has head phones in or not is almost irrelevant.... if you are walking on a verge (ie not on the road) you are not going to expect to have to move into the hedge at the sound of a car and unless you have some kind of super human speed and reflexes, there's no way anyone could do anything about a car at 50mph swerving out off the road.....
 
At first when I saw the headlines I thought how can an insurance company expect a pedestrian to wear hi viz but then I read a bit more dark country lane?? street lights?? A lad was killed on the A505 near us early hours but he was a bit older but we have lads (mostly lads) walk along a local main road, pitch black as we have picked them up otherwise they would get killed. I swerved around one and it was split seconds that I saw them(this is a 60mph road). This young lady had headphones on and at 13 I would say they had the know to be more road aware even more so if she ever rode her horse on the road. As to wearing hi viz that is probably clutching at straws by the insurance company. But I do have some sympathy for the driver too. As a teenager we were told children had road sense at age 13. That was in the 70s.

Would be good to have more facts and detail. She was negligent with the old headphones on and she was meant to wait to be collected which would indicate she knew she should not walk along the road?But she did. Very sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top