|
Last night I saw a near accident. A woman was actually brushed by a car as she walked over a zebra crossing. The wrinkle is that this was in a Tesco carpark, i.e. not on the public highway? The lighting was poor. So what's the legal position on this sort of incident?
|
|
Thought car insurance only covered you on public roads!
|
|
HJ, Some offences are committed on a "road" and some in any place where the public have access. Drink Drive is the latter. Careless/without reasonable consideration is the former. "Road" depends on whether the place has been "adopted" by the local authority. ie pay for upkeep. Tescos car park is probably not open to the public when the shop is closed, unless people use it as a short cut even when the shop is closed. Question of fact for the tribunal. So it's possible that Tescos is neither a "road" nor "open to the public" which means someone could maybe get drunk AND have an accident without criminal sanction. Who said lawyers were just parasites?
|
|
|
|
It's a public place, so the driver is probably guilty of an offence.
HJ
|
|
Further to HJ's remarks, a policeman told me that any place to which the public has access is in effect a road. if this is so we may eventually find speed cameras down at B & Qs.
|
|
|
|
|
The legal position is that the car driver is always wrong, except for certain nice official categories, of course!
|
|
|
As a non-parasitical lawyer who specializes in Road Traffic Act offences let me quote.
S192(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a road quite simply as "any highway to which the public has access etc." This act led to a spate of Case Law which has now become accepted as supporting the fact that in certain cases that Car Parks are roads....now this all depends on the access to that Car Park. Our local Tesco is a 24 hour one with nice little crossings and the such like. If I was defending someone for the case quoted at the top of this thread. I would argue that yes, the Car Park is a road, but all the road markings on it are placed at the whim of the store and are consequently not "lawfully placed". However I would argue that general driving rules apply and that if my client was unlucky enough to flatten a punter on one of these zebras - I would not defend him on any Driving Licence, Insurance or Con and Use offences, but as the "road" was not maintained by the Local Authority that he would not need a valid tax disc. I would argue the "faliure to conform to a pedestrian crossing" as the it wasn't lawfully placed, but I would have difficulty in defending a careless driving rap if there was Prima Facia case. Case law is Clarke v.Kato and Cutter v. Eagle Insurance. This advice normally costs £60.00 an hour on a no win no fee basis.
|
interesting info - and for free - what a great site this is, HJ
seems to me charging £60 an hour is hardly extortionate for professional service .. and it could even look cheap compared to some dealer service rates
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Pugugly
....and don't forget the Offences Against the Person Act for causing injury by wanton or furious driving which can be committed anywhere.
Wish I could charge your prices but I am not in the Mafioso Legalus.
DVD
|
|
|
Indeed.....OAPA is currently being re-written (for the 21st Cent. and not for the C19 - when it was written) and hopefully the new act will reflect current situations.
I try to avoid legal aid stuff now as it's been paperworked out of a reliastic living, but prices do reflect the need to run a town centre office and toing and froing to many local courts as well as trying to pull a living out of it.......
I feel strongly about the "abuse" of Road Traffic Offences as well as having a major interest in this line of work, never felt guilty about enjoying my work and mitigating the money making machine that Speeding Fines et al have become.
|
|
|
|
Presumably the lady in question could in any case bring a civil action for damages against the driver, if she could catch him. Or even against Tesco for poor lighting?
|
|
|
I don't have my Highway Code to hand, but doesn't it say that ... pedestrians always have right of way...?
Cue correction.
S.
|
|
|
