From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 07/09/2025 03:25 PM, Nick Odell wrote: 
 > On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 09:56:23 +0100, The Todal  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 05/09/2025 22:50, John wrote: 
 >>> My friends son went flying into a car tonight whilst chasing a loose dog 
 >>> and disn't see it. 
 >>> 
 >>> There's damage to the windscreen and side of car.  Obviously the lad is 
 >>> totally at fault but it got me wondering as to legal liability. 
 >>> 
 >>> I remember several years ago going down the left hand side of a dual 
 >>> carriageway passed a long line of stationary cars who were stuck at a 
 >>> roundabout further up, came to a pelican crossing which was green and a 
 >>> youndg female walked straight into my path, damaging my windscreen. She 
 >>> was badly injured and taken away by ambulance, and I never pursued it 
 >>> further, nor did I know how to.  I laimed on windscreen insurance for 
 >>> repair, just paying the excess. 
 >>> 
 >> 
 >> Yes, a pedestrian can be liable in negligence for the damage they cause 
 >> to a vehicle. There is no requirement on a parent to pay what a child 
 >> owes, but perhaps parents will do so because they don't want the child 
 >> to be subjected to what might be a day in court, unlikely though that 
 >> scenario is. 
 >> 
 >> I doubt if a typical household insurance policy covers us for our 
 >> negligence in a street as distinct from negligence relating to ownership 
 >> or occupation of a house, or in connection with owning or driving our 
 >> car. I had a quick look at my LV policy and there isn't any relevant 
 >> insurance clause, and I see online that Zurich has a "Family Legal 
 >> Protection Insurance" policy that specifically excludes any damages that 
 >> you are liable for. 
 > 
 > Was this a parked car? If so, I can't see any ground for absolving the 
 > boy from blame. But if this was a moving vehicle doesn't the hierarchy 
 > of duty of care, as set out in the Highway Code, (Motor vehicle > 
 > other vehicle > horse > pedestrian) come in to play here? Surely the 
 > motorist has a duty to anticipate and watch out for things like that? 
 > "It all happened so quickly" is a mitigation, not an absolution, isn't 
 > it? 
  
 Is the so-called hierarchy ensrined in any legislation? 
  
 HMSO's mere re-printing of the Highway Code surely cannot make an 
 innocent party guilty of something which isn't an offence? 
  
 As an example of where the "hierarchy" didn't and could never work was 
 an accident on the M56 North Cheshire motorway some years ago in the 
 Frodsham area. A group of small boys (it might have been as few as two) 
 crossed the motorway on foot (presumably not wishing to proceed via a 
 bridge or underpass) and were killed when running out in front of 
 fast-moving traffic. No prosecutions of any drivers followed. 
  
 CoPilot found the report: 
  
  
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)