UKH

A driver is manoeuvring her car into a parking space. A pedestrian standing on the driver side of the car indicates that there is plenty space in front of him and waves her into the space. The driver follows the pedestrian’s hand signals and drives forward into the space but in doing so scrapes the passenger side of her car on a concrete bollard that the pedestrian was unable to see from where he is standing. Who is the blame for the damage to the car? Who should foot the bill for the repairs?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

The driver

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

The driver holds the round twiddly thing and presses the pedals on the floor, the driver is supposed to be in control so is to blame. Bill footed by driver or driver's insurance.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

The driver. Clearly.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

passenger

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I blame Brexit.

Though Trump may have had a hand in it.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Driver. Driver/Owner/Insurer/Don't repair... decide as appropriate.
jk

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

was the pedestrian adhering to the "headlight code"?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Fancy Bears

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
The driver, looking to see if there's a bollard to drive into is the kind of thing a driver should think about when entering a parking space.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

You.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Apparently the local council who installed the bollard there in the first place, as few drivers are ever responsible for their own actions! (Eg speeding is the fault of the police for catching them, drink driving is the brewers for making the stuff, cigarettes because the tobacco companies allow them to be addictive, even chocolate companies who charge a lot for their eggs forcing customers to be ripped off, etc etc, all examples picked from threads on here over the years!)

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver....

In reply to MG:


What's your problem? I'm just looking for help in the form of impartial opinions.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Were you the driver? If so, it's your fault. That's an impartial opinion.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver. Obviously

In reply to MG:


No I wasn't the driver as it goes. Why couldn't you just say "the driver" like everybody else? You made it personal based on an assumption that was completely wrong.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


I doubt it was completely wrong.

In reply to MG:

You assumed I was the driver. I was not the driver. Therefore you were completely wrong.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

This is obviously an incident you are connected to or you wouldn't raise it. As described it is the driver who was in the wrong. It's pretty obvious to me you want the answer to your question be anything but "the driver", know in fact it won't be, but are asking the internet anyway in the hope someone says what you want to hear. I'm pretty certain this means either you were the driver or closely connected to the driver, in which case I am not completely wrong.

In reply to MG:


As described, the driver was a woman. Gerry Doncaster is a man (if his profile is correct). Therefore the driver was not Gerry Doncaster, so Gerry Doncaster was not wrong.

In reply to MG:

You are completely and utterly wrong on counts. Both with your assumption that I was the driver and also with your assumption that I wanted the answer to be "anything but the driver". I tried to phrase the question as neutrally as possible to canvas unbiased and impartial opinions on the matter. In fact I was hoping the consensus would be that the driver WAS to blame but went out of my way not to weight the question.

For the record I was the pedestrian. The driver is holding me completely responsible for the damage to her car and intends to make me pay for repairs carried out by a main dealer body shop. Her car is a 64 reg top of the range sports car. I know from recent experience that such repairs are likely to be very expensive, most likely into four figures. I do genuinely feel bad about what happened but don't want to face financial ruin as a result. I am very stressed and worried about this situation and just came on this forum looking for help. In any case thanks so much for jumping in and having a go at me without knowing the facts and making wrong assumptions. There's always one.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

My Mrs would say it was my fault if I was driving and she was directing, and my fault if I was directing and she was driving !

however - ultimately its the drivers fault - but if people are going to offer to help by way of direction then they have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with the area before commencing - as does the driver before moving the car - common sense really ! unfortunately common sense isn't very common though !!!

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
All right I was wrong then. Sorry Tell her to piss off. It's her fault.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


As pretty much everyone above has said it seems obvious it's 100% the driver's responsibility - apart from a couple of pisstake replies which (my own earlier one included) were probably prompted because the actual answer seemed so glaringly obvious. You say the driver 'intends to make you pay'? How? Assuming you will politely and respectfully refuse, and point out that you don't accept responsibility, I can't imagine what possible leg she could have to stand on?

In reply to MG:


fair dues. not many apologies on here. Usually people admit defeat but slinking off into silence.

In reply to tony:


This is like one of the logic questions...if A, B, C and D are all driving their cars and X, Y, Z ... who is the elephant?

In reply to ripper:


The young woman has threatened to take me to court and claims her dad is a barrister which of course may or may not be true. As I said I do feel really bad about what happened and am prepared to pay something like £100 quid towards her repairs even though she is being somewhat less than gracious about the matter. She is adamant however that it was entirely my fault and that I should foot the entire bill.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I have nothing to base this on, but I would be suspicous of offering anything at all. It may appear to some that you are then accepting partial responsibility. Maybe someone else could comment on that?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Do not offer anything, if her old man is a barrister I'm sure that he could use that to say that you accept partial responsibility, therefore you are equally to blame.

I wouldn't engage with her at all now.

In reply to NottsRich:

snap

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Absolutely NOT your / the pedestrians fault. These come up quite often in various guises. The person at the wheel is 100% responsible.

The other common one is where some kind soul stops to let another driver in and gives them an "after you" gesture, in response to which they pull out and get hit by a car going the other way because they failed to check and blindly followed "instructions". You are not in control of their car and so cannot be held liable, even if initially you felt bad and gave them your details - this does not count as any admission of liability or obligation to pay for the damage, so does not strengthen their case in any way.

Sure you feel bad, but FFS you were just trying to help, no way you are liable. As others have said, tell her to jog on. This is what car insurance is for. If they drive a fancy car then they should be fully comp, if not then it's their problem not yours.

Don't waste any more heart beats on this mate!

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

What kind of barrister? Family law? Criminal? It is totally irrelevant whether he is a barrister or not.
What's he going to do? I would wait for her solicitor to send a letter, and just get on with your life in the meantime.
And don't offer to pay her £100. She was driving, she should have checked.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


They'd have to be pretty thick to do that.

Assuming body panel damage only their best bet is likely to pay for repairs themselves and not tell their insurers. If they can't park (which they've demonstrated) and claim for damage, their premiums won't look so good. It would be very unusual to file in court directly and not through their insurers, this may have implications for their policy; I do not know.

Go to court and the accident is a matter of public knowledge; not disclosing it could jeopardise the validity of their insurance cover.

Pay careful attention to their behaviour in case they stray into legal offence territory, likely in commiting harassment.

Ignore all communication from them but keep it. If in any doubt speak to citezens advice. Stay strong and let the idiot stew. Hopefully they'll go crying to daddy and he'll explain a few facts of life to them.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Has she got any of your details? Full name, address, phone number etc...
And don't admit any liability, she hasn't got a leg to stand on.
For example, you're at a junction, a driver waves you out and you pull out into another car. You as the driver would be 100% at fault not the person who slowed down to let you pull out.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
I would say the pedestrian could be sued. Negligence or malicous intent would have to be proved which maybe tricky, also no point sueing the pedestrian if they have no money. I would guess the insurer or driver would look at how much the repairs would cost and assess if persueing the pedestrian was financially viable, which would seem unlikely.
As an analogy consider if the pedestrian had directed the vehicle and someone had died, the courts would have to apportion responsibility, which may be shared. Obviously this is in the scheme of things, but not to you, minor, and I would doubt for a few thousand this would go to court.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Not your problem - walk away.

Driver responsible.

Fancy car - even basic ones tend to have parking sensors these days..... Whatever, it's her responsibility and 'my father is a barrister' is a worthless threat.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Absolutely her fault. She was going fowards and is obliged to 'proceed with caution'. You may have indicated she could proceed forward, but she still has responsibility to manoeuver the car and turn the steering wheel appropriately! She always has responsibility for her 'blind spots' - regardless of whether they are also blind spots for you.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Driver!

As an example I believe there was a well publicised case a year or two ago by a driver who was prosecuted for speeding. His defence was that his employer (I think he was a chauffeur/river) had told him/insisted he drive faster as he was late for some 'important' meeting. The defence was not accepted by the courts. It is the driver who is also responsible if a passenger refuses or isn't wearing a seat belt.

I believe the same principle applies to captains of ships whilst they have pilots on board. Although it is the pilot whose expertise is used, it is still the captain who is responsible for the ship should an accident happen.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
I think you'll find that if you tell her to go and see a solicitor and communicate through him or her instead of threatening you, that'll be the last you hear from the driver. If they even pursued that option, which I doubt, they'd quickly find out that not only are they liable for their driving but also that the burden of proving your malice or negligence would fall on them. You acted in good faith, they failed to look where they are going. Case closed.

Her dad's a barrister my arse. One things for sure, if he genuinely were, he'd have told her to drop it before she exacerbated her pain.

Edit to add: as I'm not professionally qualified to offer this advice I am not liable if you pursue this course and it leads to a loss on your part. In the same way as you're not an employee of the car park firm, which is just about the only situation which would have made you, or rather the firm, potentially liable!!

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver, obviously

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Personally I think its their fault for not looking etc. You would hope that they would just have their insurance deal with it.

However if you were directing the driver at the time of the incident you may be at least partly liable for it. As they crashed into something whilst you were directing them this may in the eyes of the law mean you share the blame.

Utimately depends on how far they are prepared to pursue it, witnesses etc. If it ends up in court it could be costly either way.

In reply to Derry:


You sure about that? It seems to me that most threads on here degenerate into (usually) 2 people with opposed opinions rehashing their arguments until one gets bored and gives up. If one didn't give up most threads would continue ad infinitum. I don't think it means they think they were wrong. Slinks off into silence....

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


If that's her attitude don't pay owt and make note to self... don't try to help people who buy flash cars they aren't competent to drive.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Don't take the blame, she was driving and did the damage.
Hope you can walk away and don't get stressed and feel any blame.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Not entirely clear from your description. By offering to help with the parking (even implicitly), the pedestrian would voluntarily accept some responsibility for losses caused by mistakes on his part. Merely indicating the space available is very different to giving hand signals to help with manoeuvring.

To claim 100% fault, the driver would have to prove: 1. that the pedestrian volunteered to help park the car, 2. that the pedestrian gave instructions that (if followed would lead to an accident). 3. That the driver could not reasonably have avoided the accident by her own observations and judgement. I think that those three points would be extremely hard to prove.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
It is the driver's job to safely get into a space, which includes negotiating any street furniture. All you were doing was helpfully indicating the space available. If there was any doubt as to what you meant it was the driver's responsibility. It was also the driver's responsibility to be aware of anything in the space that you could see or could not see.

In reply to MarkJH:

whether the pedestrian voluntarily accepted responsibility is debatable - whether or not the pedestrian took on any liability is an even further step which would be even harder to establish. Drivers have an obligation to evaluate a task, not just obey the hand signals of a stranger (unless it's someone acting in an official capacity.

Case dismissed

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy: The driver. At worst you're responsible for the gap in front, not the object out of your sight she should have spotted. And even then still her. Don't offer a thing.

In reply to wercat:


They are very much related. Liability is a position in relation to a loss that is established through responsibility (amongst other factors).


You can point to this as a legal position? Reference? In some vehicles, with poor visibility, the use of an ad hoc banksman might be the only way to safely complete a particular manoeuvre in a particular set of circumstances. The fact that a driver has the primary responsibility, does not mean that negligence on the the part of the other party would be ignored if it came to court.

As I said, I very much doubt that this applied here (and would be even harder to prove), but I do think that asserting that the driver must be 100% at fault, purely because they were the driver, is too simplistic.

In reply to MarkJH:

that is an argument, but not one that Gerry should accept for the moment

In reply to wercat:


I agree.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Perhaps you could send her a polite letter saying that while you're sorry she is distressed at the accident, it's the drivers responsibility to assess a parking space before driving into it, and had she done, she might have thought to ask somebody to watch the bollard she drove into?

And keep a copy too? She's being quite unreasonable. Have had to volunteer for somebody who doesn't take responsibility - grrr.

In reply to Scotch Bingington:


Just me then

In reply to Timmd:

If Barrister-Dad sends a threat letter write a badly expressed scruffily written reply in pencil on lined paper. Say you've got no means to pay anything and last time you were in court somebody called you "a man of straw", and were a bad bet for costs, whatever that means ...

In reply to MarkJH:


Probably not the little sports car that Daddy's girl was driving in the OP!

In reply to MarkJH:

When a banksman is used, the driver still has overall responisibility....

In reply to neilh:

True, but that doesn't alter the fact that other people may be liable for losses resulting from their negligence. It is inconceivable (for example) that if somebody offered to help you park a van, and negligently directed you into an object (or person) that was not visible from the drivers position, that they would carry no liability for any losses.

Obviously an extreme example (and almost certainly not applicable to the OP), but there is nothing special about being a driver that excuses other people from the consequences of their mistakes.

In reply to Timmd:

Nooooo. Say nothing!

In reply to J1234:
You're right on reflection.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Just ignore her, nothing will come of it.

If it even gets as far as her solicitor they'll at some cost signpost her to her insurer who'll get ripped off by the body shop then recoup the cost from all of us over the coming years.
jk

In reply to MarkJH:

Mistake or negligence?Big difference.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver. Otherwise, the driver would have to prove that the pedestrian was responsible for the vehicle at the time for it to be the pedestrian's fault, which would take some doing. Alternatively, they would perhaps have to prove that the pedestrian owed the driver a duty of care and show how this was established to an extent sufficient to make the pedestrian liable for any action taken by the driver - and to show also where the boundaries of this duty of care lay.

Flawed judgement by the driver in many ways, which shows no sign of improving afetr the incident either.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Sadly, starting this thread may have been a slight mistake.

Assuming there's no CCTV and no witness other than the driver and pedestrian, there's no record of what, if anything, was indicated by the pedestrian. He could have been frantically suggesting "don't drive into that space" and was misinterpreted by the driver. He could have been waving at his friend on the other side of the drivers car. He could have been drunk and randomly waving his arms. There are so many possible interpretations which would be down to one persons word against another that no sensible solicitor would recommend going to court.

Although still very unlikely, and with responsibility still very much on the driver, the fact the OP has suggested in an online public forum "that there is plenty space in front of him and waves her into the space. The driver follows the pedestrian’s hand signals and drives forward into the space" could be taken to mean that the pedestrian had assumed at least a partial duty of care.

In reply to neilh:

Again: there can be. A mistake is simply an act that leads to an unintended consequence. A mistake can be ignorant, or negligent. Unless strict liability is present, then only the latter form will lead to liability.

In the case of a stranger giving directions, the claimant would also have to show that they were competent to give directions, which is an additional hurdle in the case of the OP (no offence intended to the OP!).

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I'm confused as to what constitutes a "top of the range sports car".

In reply to SiGregory:


Now that's an interesting line of enquiry. Arguably, the cheap and cheerful Mazda MX5 is at least near the top of the marque's range, while the Porsche Cayman, at twice the price, is Zuffenheim's bargain basement model.

OP needs to improve his auto-journalism as much as his hand signals. But is still not liable for the damage.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
the fact that she drove forwards suggest she should have had no problem seeing what she was driving into and if she did have a problem should have been more cautious.
res ipsa loquitur

In reply to BnB:

Maybe top of the range sports cars should be fitted with parking sensors.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
The driver.
Why would you need to be directed if you were driving forward into a space?
How wide/long was the car and how short/narrow was the space?
Did she even have a licence?
Sue her for the trauma you suffered from witnessing the accident?

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Claim damages to your bollard.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

You dont seem to have much luck in car parks..........

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=656850&v=1#x8479340

In reply to Ian W:


It has been a bad few months in that respect. This whole situation has got a horrible feeling of deja vu about it.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Do you actually know this driver? i.e. do you need to maintain a civil relationship for work/other purposes?

If no then really don't worry and don't even think about offering anything.

If yes, it's more of a problem.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Driver's fault. You don't even need to provide your details.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Gerry,Tell her to do her worst. It's her responsibility and she chose to accept your advice. That does not absolve her if responsibility. She is utterly confrontational because, it seems to me, she made a big mistake. My dad is a barrister is just pathetic. Try posting on the Pistonheads' Speed, Plod and the La`w forum and you should get competent and knowledgable advice. Good luck.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Offer her fifty quid, but you get to keep the car.