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

[Sparklingbrook]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

at damaged skull and coma though.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comtesse I can't read the other thread either.

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