Insurance Opinions welcome.

[HerrNigred]

You've nearly given it away now, conny.
As you didn't have a 50/50 option to start with I assume we can discount that as an alternative.
Similarly, there's no "no compensation" or other options.
So it was car or supermarket insurance.
There's a chance half will be right and the other half.... well they'll just continue to disagree.
I still want a 60/40 option

 

[JBR]

Go on Conny. Tell us what happened. I'm still with the car driver being 100% liable.

 

[Bosswhite]

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?

The Garage asked the Police to attend their property because of a suspected burglary so it was up to the Garage who directed the officer to that place with the dangerous kerb to advise the area was unsafe.
If I remember right the Police Officer dropped the claim due to pressure from High ( Home Secretary) (but they had another claim in the pipeline for another accident)
Insurance Companies say once the snow and Ice has been treated swept away/salted etc it is the responsibility of the person clearing the area ( a warning sign should be shown) if someone slips gets hurt it is the person that cleared the snows problem,
A householder who sweeps snow from a path and a Postman slips and hurts themself can claim from the householder.
If left in its natural state the problem then is the person that slips and falls responsibility
Insurance Companies put a percentage on the victim. The theory being being it was partly the injured persons problem they were there at the time, basically if they were not there the accident would not have happened
so IMO it would be 60% driver fault.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yeah, of course.

All traffic accidents are caused by driving too slowly.
Had they been going faster they would have past the scene before the accident happened.

 

[conny]

OK. This is a summary of what actually happened.

In 1990 my partner was leaving a well known supermarket after doing some shopping. It was roughly about half an hour after opening time and the store had quite a number of customers already in there. It had been snowing previously and the car park had not been cleared with the result it had become very icy and slippery.

As my partner was walking to her car with her 3 year old daughter a car approaching from behind went out of control. Partner only realised 'something' was wrong when a woman approaching from the front yelled at her to watch out. Maternal instincts took over and she pushed her daughter in between two parked cars out of danger but was herself hit by the out of control car. She was pinned against another vehicle and suffered a fractured spine near the base of her skull. (2nd, 3rd and 4th vertebra). After spending time in hospital and being operated on to try and repair the damage she was told she probably wouldn't be able to walk again. Determined to prove them all wrong, and not wishing to spend her life in a wheelchair, (in all probability she may do one day), she regained the ability to walk, (albeit not very far), and lead a near normal life as possible but in constant pain. She has since been classified as disabled because of the limitations this has placed on her life and needs another dangerous operation in a few months which may reduce the pain but could also confine her to a wheelchair or even worse. It will not improve her mobility.

After being released from hospital she consulted a solicitor who placed a claim for injuries against both the car drivers insurance and the supermarkets insurance. Both sides denied responsibility. Car insurance saying it was on private land and therefore drivers insurance was not in effect. Supermarket claiming they had no duty to ensure car park was cleared and also notices stating vehicles were left at owners risk. After spending thousands on solicitors and having various medical assessments her solicitor advised her to drop the case as both companies would bankrupt her before making a precedent by paying out her claim.

This was all in the days before 'No win-No fee' companies were in existence so may be things might be different now, but it makes me so mad that these places could get away with such a thing. I know its far too late for her to try again, and to be honest she doesn't want to, but its so maddening that two big companies and a driver get away scot free while an innocent person has to suffer for the rest of her life, which may be for another 30 or 40 years, God willing.

 

[AronSearle]

Morally I see it as 100% the car drivers fault

That's what crowbars are for.

Wait for some time to pass, then find the guy and mess him up.

But seriosly, why did you solicitor not sue the guy, rather than try claim on his insurance, is that not allowed?

 

[conny]

As I didn't know my partner at that time, (we are a fairly 'recent' item lol), I don't know why he didn't explore every avenue possible. I have sat here some nights wondering about different ways that may have been possible to get her the justice she should have been entitled to.

My reason for posting the thread was to see what opinions may have and, hopefully, make them aware just how dangerous these places are when you think you are safe going to them.

I've looked at various web sites which now seem to claim that supermarkets have a duty of care outside the shop as well as inside these days. Pity it appears that just over 20 years ago they didn't. Not that money would have changed her injuries.

BTW, Thank you to all those that participated in this.

 

[crank39]

Its bad enough when its just 2 cars, in this scenario you'd just have to take it on the chin but when people are involved you would hope there are provisions somewhere for some sort of compensation, sorry to here about the mrs conny, must of been hell going through the treatment as well as a claim, your accounts seem to prove my theory correct then

 

[Bosswhite]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

 

[JulianP]

OK. Car insurance saying it was on private land and therefore drivers insurance was not in effect. g.

That's the bit I'm not sure about. Private land for sure, but crucially the public have access to it. Thus it is classed as a 'road' under the meaning of the Road Traffic Act and so insurance is required and all the regular stuff like drink/drug driving laws apply etc.

Car insurance is certainly in force in my opinion.

 

[AronSearle]

The question "should car insurance cover it" is a different question than "was the driver to blame".

The driver was to blame, but I can see that neither insurance body has anything to do with it (they claim private property etc, supermarket not at fault).

The insurance isnt there for the person suing, it's for the person being sued so he doesnt have to pay out of his pocket.

So you sue the driver personally, not claim on his insurance, I can't understand in this story why that didnt happen.

?

 

[conny]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

Surely people shouldn't be expected to stay at home just because there is snow/ice on the ground? If that were the case no-one would be able to go to work. And why should individuals have to take out 'Private Accident Insurance' to cover themselves against something like this when both 'guilty' parties have to have insurance to cover eventualities such as this?

 

[conny]

Unfortunately Aron I can't comment on that because I didn't know my partner at the time.

It does amaze me that the solicitor didn't appear to go down this road of argument. Maybe the insurance company denying all responsibility meant that spending money chasing the driver in a 'civil' claim would amount to him not having the funds to pay anything anyway.

A lot of unanswered questions as far as I'm concerned but the answers that apply today may well have not applied 20 years ago. Thinking of writing to a few insurance companies and supermarkets with this question, maybe hinting that I am doing some kind of thesis or something, just to see what replies I get back.

 

[JulianP]

. Thinking of writing to a few insurance companies and supermarkets with this question, maybe hinting that I am doing some kind of thesis or something, just to see what replies I get back.

You will get no replies. They would not be daft enough to stick their heads above the parapet!

 

[Bosswhite]

An interesting story, I dont think things have changed much, IMO the "No Win No Fee" Solicitors would have had a hard job to prove this particular case.

The argument would be why did she HAVE to go to the Supermarket knowing there was snow on the ground, she could have waited until it had cleared and was safe, or go somewhere that was not snow bound.
The car involved in the accident was on Private Land so would not be covered by its Motor Insurance.

In hindsight it may have been a good idea that the woman concerned had a Private Accident Insurance policy, People think they are covered by Public Liability Insurances but that is not necessarily the case.

Surely people shouldn't be expected to stay at home just because there is snow/ice on the ground? If that were the case no-one would be able to go to work. And why should individuals have to take out 'Private Accident Insurance' to cover themselves against something like this when both 'guilty' parties have to have insurance to cover eventualities such as this?

Sorry to disagree with you but Snow and Ice is dangerous to walk on everyone knows that, so in Insurance terms one is putting themselves at risk if they go out in these conditions,
Insurance is for accidents that are not expected. one can expect the possibility of being injured in these conditions so Insurance will not cover this sort of situation.