Mumsnet has not checked the knowledge, experience or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious legal concerns, we would suggest you consult a lawyer.

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

(73 Posts)
Sparklingbrook Fri 09-Aug-13 12:16:19

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

BlazinStoke Sun 11-Aug-13 17:12:33

Comtesse - I was thinking just the same. I started reading that other thread and gave up, people weren't listening to the voices of reason in there.
OrangeOpalFruit - the fact that the OP didn't intend to damage the car only means she is not guilty of criminal damage under criminal law (so won't be liable for punishment by the state). She is potentially liable under civil law in which case the other party is entitled to damages (compensation) to put them in the position they would have been had the OP not been negligent.
As my tort lecturer used to say, there really is no such thing as an "accident"

Boosiehs Sun 11-Aug-13 17:18:48

Oh thank heavens for this thread. The other one made my blood boil. I completely agree tat the damage was foreseeable and the OP will most liely be found liable.

All of the " but I can't pay and they were mean to me" nonsense is just that!

Chubfuddler Sun 11-Aug-13 17:22:46

I am another lawyer who hid it. I suggested on the thread she offer to pay for repair by dibgmaster or similar as a compromise. But the strict legal position is of course as you have all outlined.

WestieMamma Sun 11-Aug-13 17:24:23

I didn't read the entire thread, but when I gave my opinion I was slapped back down and told that the 'legal people' up thread had already established that what I was saying was wrong. I didn't respond but did think 'oh shit, I thought I understood this area of law. I'm so up the creek when my exams come around sad'.

ComtesseDeFrouFrou Sun 11-Aug-13 18:44:14

The bit that made me give up was when one poster said "well, all the solicitors on this thread think that the Audi people are being unreasonable, so go and see the CAB and see what they say".

Oh really? All the solicitors are saying that hmm

And, for the record, I've never known the CAB to know their arse from their elbow when it comes to this sort of thing...

Chubfuddler Sun 11-Aug-13 20:47:39

Nor have I ever known the CAB give a shit about a Small claims RTA. They'd tell her to phone her insurers and when she said she didn't have any, they'd tell her to speak to a solicitor. That's all.

Chubfuddler Sun 11-Aug-13 20:48:40

Although obviously this incident does not in fact meet the definition of an RTA. But you know what I mean.

JenaiMorris Sun 11-Aug-13 21:51:01

But Audi couple are taking the piss. I don't believe the trolley caused any damage beyond a slight scrape, if that.

They're trying to get that OP to pay for a prang caused by Mrs Audi before the Aldi affair. I feel it in my waters.

Boosiehs Sun 11-Aug-13 23:00:40

That's for the court to decide on evidence. Unilaterally deciding that "it's not fair so OP shouldn't pay" isn't in accordance with the law.

digerd Mon 12-Aug-13 21:54:12

Jenai
Exactly my and other's suspicions. The 2 dents were too low down to have been caused by a trolley imo.

mathanxiety Tue 13-Aug-13 05:20:21

Mrs Audi doesn't want to admit to Mr Audi that she dinged the new car somehow so OP's runaway trolley in the Aldi thread is a gift from God? That makes sense.

I am puzzled that the owner of a car parked downhill from other shoppers in a car park full of trolleys that have no brakes can do so without any raised eyebrow or hint that that was a really stupid place to park a car she cared about. As the tort prof upthread said - 'there is no such thing as an accident'.

WestieMamma Tue 13-Aug-13 06:37:53

There's also no such things as speculation and conjecture when it come to court.

ComtesseDeFrouFrou Tue 13-Aug-13 10:59:26

I love how everyone one on that thread knows exactly what damage was caused, where it was located on the car, the type of trolley etc. The OP said she didn't have any pictures and no-one else was there, so how can they possibly know?! grin

As for trollies with brakes, well that's a completely new one on me - I have never in my 32 years seen a trolley with brakes on.

KrazyKurls Tue 13-Aug-13 11:13:53

comtesse I've not read the thread, I couldn't possibly care enough about a piece of metal to comment. All trolleys that I have used with baby seats, < 9 kg, have had breaks. I always use them so the baby doesn't roll into oncoming traffic.

I can't comment on other trolleys though as I don't use them if baby isn't in the seat.

bruffin Tue 13-Aug-13 11:20:07

Our local tesco has a 2 inch incline, trolleys have a life of their own in there. I have never seen a trolley with a break.

mathanxiety Tue 13-Aug-13 20:51:30

There is the matter of reasonable doubt if it goes to court. You can't make someone fork over hundreds of pounds if there is sufficient doubt as to whether her trolley caused the ding. In order to arrive at a just conclusion the other ways the ding may have been caused need to be considered. Photos and maybe a measuring tape and an examination of the trolley and the cctv tape might come in handy.

mathanxiety Tue 13-Aug-13 20:54:01

I have never seen trolleys with brakes either. most of the places I shop have some sort of automatic brake to prevent people taking their shopping home in them. It's activated by crossing a line at the perimeter of the carpark. Inside the carpark they are like tumbleweeds.

ComtesseDeFrouFrou Tue 13-Aug-13 21:05:33

math the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases, it's judged on the balance of probabilities, rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" like you see in criminal cases.

mathanxiety Tue 13-Aug-13 21:17:09

A decent solicitor would be well able to point out that the balance of probabilities meant the OP shouldn't pay if the location of the ding relative to the shape of the trolley left grounds for thinking the balance of probability lay with the version where the Audi owners were trying their luck. Imho, if this OP were to say she was hiring a solicitor who would ask for photos and measurements and would be checking the Aldi trolleys the Audi owners would suddenly find the body shop repairs were perfectly acceptable and would accept her fifty quid. I don't think this would go near court.

Boosiehs Tue 13-Aug-13 23:41:34

Not really, Math. Balance of probabilities just means more likely than not that the trolley caused the damage. Which seems quite likely given what's been said by the OP.

Collaborate Wed 14-Aug-13 00:29:09

Can I just point out that OP in this thread is not the same OP as in the original thread? Makes this thread something of an academic exercise rather than a practical one.

mathanxiety Wed 14-Aug-13 04:25:38

I suspect this will not get to court, even small claims court, and a good solicitor would make this his or her business.

Sparklingbrook Wed 14-Aug-13 07:19:17

Sorry Collaborate I only started this one as I was sick of all the speculative stuff on the other thread. I did think that responses from here would be on the other thread. Plus the OP on the other thread hasn't returned so it's all academic now. I feel we will never know what happened anyway.

digerd Wed 14-Aug-13 07:38:07

the balance of probabilities as a definition of proof!? confused shock

TheDoctrineOfJetlag Wed 14-Aug-13 07:58:05

That's always (I think) true in UK civil cases, Digerd.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now