Insurance Opinions welcome.

[conny]

Hypothetical situation, (well, not really but for purposes of this it will be).

Pedestrian is walking across a supermarket car on the way back to their car. The car park is iced over after a recent cold spell/snow fall and the time is approximately half an hour after opening time.

A car entering/leaving the car park goes out of control in these conditions and the pedestrian is unable to get out of the way before the out of control car slams into them, crushing them against a wall or other car and in doing so they suffer a fractured spine.

In your opinion which insurance company should pay for the pedestrians injuries? The car drivers or the supermarkets? The car driver has comprehensive insurance and nothing to state that he should not have been driving at that time.

 

[HerrNigred]

I suspect that in a real situation it could be 50%/50%
Based on the fact that the supermarket could reasonably be expected to know about the condition of the car park, and it's reasonable to assume that even just employees arriving for work will have to use the carpark.
Also the car driver should be expected to be aware of the suituation.
So you need a 50/50 option as well.

 

[JBR]

The car driver. Lack of attention and failing to take precautions due to the adverse driving conditions.

If this happened on a stretch of ungritted road, would the council be liable? Would they bug gery!

 

[Whitespirit66]

Yes, as above. Claim off of her car insurance.

 

[EddieM]

Car driver. You are on private land. They are not under any obligation to clear the snow and you are there at your own risk.

 

[conny]

Can one of the Mods add a 50/50 opinion to this thread please?

 

[crank39]

Good original question, this could run for weeks

Heres another one, 1 car bumps into another in said car park, i ask because i've always been lead to believe many times that claiming from an insurance company for something that happened on private land can be a nightmare

Private land is defined as 'not highways maintained', various police officers have confirmed this including a sergent in the family

 

[Mikefromlondon]

I would say Tough! The driver was not insured as it turned out to be! He had not declared his speeding fine and penalty points!

and why should the store's insurance pay, why ? the car driver should have made sure that he had declared all material facts.

 

[HerrNigred]

I would say Tough! The driver was not insured as it turned out to be! He had not declared his speeding fine and penalty points!

and why should the store's insurance pay, why ? the car driver should have made sure that he had declared all material facts.

your a hard-nosed bustard some times , Mike
The poor pedestrian has a hypothetical broken back FFS.

I think I've changed ny mind. I think it should be 60%/40%
Could we have a 60/40 option as well?

 

[planenut]

The initial claim is from the injured pedestrian against the car drivers insurance, which in turn will make a claim against the supermarket.

 

[gregers]

throw this into it aswel,for the 1st question.

a few months ago a police patrol were called to a garage that had/was being burgled,it was dark and iirc the policewoman triped up a white painted curb,and was suing the garage owner on health and safety grounds.

so if the road had not been salted/cleared could the pedestrian not then be able to sue the supermarket owners for negligence?

 

[crank39]

throw this into it aswel,for the 1st question.

a few months ago a police patrol were called to a garage that had/was being burgled,it was dark and iirc the policewoman triped up a white painted curb,and was suing the garage owner on health and safety grounds.

so if the road had not been salted/cleared could the pedestrian not then be able to sue the supermarket owners for negligence?

You'd of thought so - allowing the public onto your land - duty of care and all that jazz, thats why i voted supermarket

 

[rjm2k]

In that case the woman was unsuccessful in her claim iirc

 

[snico]

Both parties could end up paying, prob go 50/50

The supermarket has a duty of care to its customers and ensure safety, that includes vehicles arriving and leaving their car park. Not gritting a car park would fall into that.

 

[conny]

I would say Tough! The driver was not insured as it turned out to be! He had not declared his speeding fine and penalty points!

and why should the store's insurance pay, why ? the car driver should have made sure that he had declared all material facts.

If this refers to my original post then please read it properly.

Although I said 'Hypothetical' I also stated, "Well not really but for purposes of this it will be." In other words this is a real case from quite a while ago. I am trying to find peoples opinions on it and at the end I will reveal what actually happened. You may be surprised, but then again, you may not.

So can we keep it on topic and try not to inject false facts into it please. All relevant facts have been disclosed in the original post.