-
Thanks for the replies. I am looking into it but it seems rather arbitrary that a household/contents insurance would cover this type of event.
Household/contents insurance doesn't specifically, but most of those policies include "personal liability insurance" which would (probably) have helped cover him.
But the reason for the unequal liability was procedural in that apparently only the pedestrian was able to claim damages because she was the first to file a claim...
No, it's because he thought he was doing the right thing and didn't lodge a counter-claim. If he had done then the lawyers would have seen it was going nowhere and there would have been no big costs and no one-sided damages awarded.
It's all there in the article.
-
Regarding the phone use, both were held to be equally at fault, which is questionable in my view because well she was looking at her phone.
She is theoretically at fault for being somewhere where she shouldn't be/distracted, but that is overruled buy the duty of care that applies (IIRC) to all road users regarding pedestrians. If they are in the road it is your duty not to hit them as they are more vulnerable than you
You are reading a single comment by @plantasia and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Greenbank
branwen
@plantasia
Thanks for the replies. I am looking into it but it seems rather arbitrary that a household/contents insurance would cover this type of event.
Regarding the phone use, both were held to be equally at fault, which is questionable in my view because well she was looking at her phone. But the reason for the unequal liability was procedural in that apparently only the pedestrian was able to claim damages because she was the first to file a claim...