Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

1 2 3

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Legal matters

Any legal people about to take a look at a thread?

72 replies

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 12:16

Here. It's been going on since Weds 31st. just interested to know from a legal perspective. TIA.

OP posts:

Report

WestieMamma · 09/08/2013 17:50

The OP in that thread admits that she 'neglected to secure the trolley as I put the last bag in and the empty trolley rolled into another shopper's parked car'. She is therefore liable for any loss (ie costs of repair) to the car owner which are a result of her negligence.

WestieMamma · 09/08/2013 17:51

Forgot to add, if she doesn't reimburse them and they take her to court to get her to pay up, then she will also be liable for their court costs.

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 17:55

How about the cost of repairs Westie does she have to pay whatever the audi owners want?

OP posts:

eurochick · 09/08/2013 17:57

I agree with Westie. It was a mistake on her part and legally she would be considered negligent and liable for the damage caused. I also agree that if it goes to court she could be liable for the car owner's costs.

WestieMamma · 09/08/2013 18:03

If the owner can show that that is the cost of the repairs, then yes she has to pay it.

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 18:07

What about the 3 quotes thing? Sorry for all the questions. I am intrigued.

OP posts:

WestieMamma · 09/08/2013 18:18

As far as I'm aware the 3 quotes thing is just a common sense thing when shopping around, not a legal requirement. There's nothing to stop someone going with their local garage who they have confidence in or choosing to use the dealership garage.

Personally we always use the dealership garage for anything to do with our car. If someone damaged it, there's no way I'd put it in a cheaper garage I didn't trust just to save the negligent person money.

WestieMamma · 09/08/2013 18:21

Sorry I just remembered, some insurance companies require 3 quotes if you are not going with their approved repairer. But that's down to the terms and conditions of the individual policy.

Fayrazzled · 09/08/2013 18:34

There are specific legal elements that must be satisfied to bring a claim in negligence in civil law. Specifically, it would have to be shown that the person who let go of the trolley had a 'duty of care' to the car driver. There are a number of legal tests with regards to whether someone owes another a duty of care. it really is not as straightforward as saying that because she let go of the trolley, the woman owes a duty of care and is negligent.

This would make a great essay for a first year law student!

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 21:40

DS1 (14) is thinking of doing law. I may run the scenario by him.

OP posts:

AmandaCooper · 09/08/2013 22:06

Wow that thread is quite an eye opener! Incredible that people think this way. To my mind the legal position is the common sense one: if you damage someone's property you have to pay for it. Even if they are rich. Even if they are rude. Even if they think they are better than you because they have a better car. Even if you can't really afford it. Even if it was a terrible accident in which you did the damage to the car with your own skull and are now in a coma.

Three quotes is because the wronged party is prevented from profiting from the tort. You have a duty to mitigate your loss. This means eg if your car's in the shop you can't take taxis everywhere if you could reasonably get the train. In this case the OP could challenge the repair cost in which case the owner of the vehicle would need to show the costs were reasonable.

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 22:09

Yes, I agree with that Amanda. But what if they can't afford to pay?

at damaged skull and coma though.

OP posts:

OrangeOpalFruit · 09/08/2013 22:10

But is it reasonable to expect the op to have been able to judge the velocity of the trolley in wet conditions and in a sloping car park?

Sparklingbrook · 09/08/2013 22:14

And is it reasonable for Mr shouty sweary Audi man to go round to the house?

OP posts:

OrangeOpalFruit · 09/08/2013 22:17

Absolutely not! Surely we all ought to carry personal insurance if we can held liable for quite large sums through no real fault of our own. The op didn't set out to damage the car.

Coconutty · 09/08/2013 22:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OrangeOpalFruit · 09/08/2013 22:46

It's pretty much impossible to load a trolley full of shopping into a car without letting go of the trolley. Should the liability not lie with the shop for failing to put brakes on the trolleys? What if you have a disability which means you only have use of one hand. Should you be banned from using trolleys because you physically cannot secure them at all times in the car park? The idea that liability lies clearly with the op just seem ridiculous to me. The car owner accepted an element of risk when they drove their car into the car park.

AmandaCooper · 10/08/2013 06:50

If the defendant genuinely cannot afford to pay, the wronged party might take the view that there is no point pursuing a claim knowing that a judgement would likely go unsatisfied. The Audi owner will not find it as easy to get representation on a no win no fee basis as he would if the defendent were wealthy or had insurance.

However this has nothing to do with the legal principle by which the OP in that thread is at fault.

ComtesseDeFrouFrou · 10/08/2013 06:57

As a lawyer, I have had to hide that thread. Intention has nothing to do with it. The OP was careless. As a result, foreseeable damage was called. The other woman was rude, but that is completely irrelevant.

I strongly suspect that, since the car was in warranty, a court would support the claimants getting the repair done at the approved garage if to do otherwise would invalidate any bodywork guarantee.

On a personal level, I find if appalling that so many people have suggested that the OP's liability had anything to do with cant pay/won't pay. That is also irrelevant, albeit unfortunate if the OP is genuinely hard up.

bruffin · 10/08/2013 07:27

I would have thought she would be covered under the legal liability section of building insurance.
My dd scratched a car when we were out on her bike and my house insurance paid for it.
The other person needs to go through his car insurance at the same time, so the two insurance companies talk to each other.

AmandaCooper · 10/08/2013 08:39

But is it reasonable to expect the op to have been able to judge the velocity of the trolley in wet conditions and in a sloping car park?

Yes. If she cannot control it, she should not use it. Yes even if she has only one arm.

AmandaCooper · 10/08/2013 08:41

Comtesse I can't read the other thread either.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

norkmonster · 10/08/2013 09:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ComtesseDeFrouFrou · 11/08/2013 07:49

Finally, a few people able to discuss this rationally and without emotions over boiling :)

BlazinStoke · 11/08/2013 17:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flip

1 2 3

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.