will wait and see how it develops.. the husband reckons the driver was
taking a phone call and was probably driving down the kerb, he was 2 miles
away at the time!
"Janitor of Lunacy" wrote in message
news:58%Fj.100210$nw4.5755@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Mike" wrote in message
> news:47e87552$0$634$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>> "Mike" wrote in message
>>
>>>> *They* are unlikely to get anything, nor are *they* likely to be
>>>> responsible for the damage. Theit son, however, could be held
>>>> responsible, or be awarded compensation (against them if your first
>>>> sentence is taken literally) depend on where the fault lies. He would
>>>> have to prove (on balance of probability) that the driver was negligent
>>>> and that he suffered loss or damage (including pain & suffering) as a
>>>> result of that negligence. If he can walk unaided after ten days and
>>>> there are no long term effects, any compensation he might win will be
>>>> quite low. Medical reports will be needed to show the level of damage.
>>>
>>> Indeed, the lad is lucky not have been prosecuted for criminal damage to
>>> the vehicle:
>>> Booth v Crown Prosecution Service [2006] EWHC 192
>>>
>>> http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/192.html&query=Booth&method=boolean
>>>
>> Thanks for that link. I like the way Lady Justice Hallett's good wishes
>> (P.28) are recorded in the judgment. :-)
>>
>> Would an 11 year old be held to the same standard, wrt recklessness, as
>> an adult?
>
> No, that's covered by R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50 here:
> http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/50.html
> and it's a subjective test, the principle set out in para 41 thereof.
>
>
>
|