Liability in case of bicycle accident: What to do?

Questioner

Hello, My 13 year old son was hit by a car while riding his bike. This happened because my son didn't stop for shark teeth. A motorist who had the right of way hit the back of his bike. My son has no damage, the car has a scratch. Who pays for the car damage?

Lawyer

Dear questioner, The driver bears the risk for the damage because your son is not yet 14 years old and traffic mistakes that children in that age group make must be taken into account.

Lawyer

Dear questioner, Because your son is 13 years old, you as a parent are liable for the damage of the motorist. However, there is a good chance that you are not liable for the entire damage. The extent to which you are liable depends on the circumstances. If you have liability insurance, I advise you to report the damage to your insurance company. They will then handle the case further and compensate any damage. Success!

Lawyer

Dear questioner,' Article 185 Wvw case law has not yet changed, which means that, unless the child is 14 years or younger and acted with intent or has recklessness bordering on intent, the motorist cannot invoke force majeure and must bear 100% of the damage (including that of the young cyclist) himself. An appeal to force majeure on the part of the motorist in relation to the accident involving a non-motorised young person under the age of 14 is rarely accepted. So I disagree with Krista's answer.

Lawyer

Dear questioner, I do not agree with the answer of my colleague Monique. Perhaps it is unclear that this concerns damage to the motorist and not to your son. The so-called 100% rule that Monique refers to, supposedly does not reflect. This means that the motorist can receive compensation. Of course, it must be determined on the basis of the circumstances whether the motorist is entitled to compensation for his entire damage. If you are interested, more information about this can be found at: http://www.verzekeraars.nl/UserFiles/File/download/sptotaal.pdf

Lawyer

Dear questioner, the motorist is only entitled to compensation if he can prove force majeure and because that rule does reflect it, a further distribution of damages in fairness does not occur. in the event of force majeure, the motorist must not be at fault in any way. see NJ 2002, 214 (note CJHB); VR 2001, 167; LJN AB1426

Lawyer

Dear questioner, Mrs. Smit is right. The 100% rule does not reflect. Now that your son has made a traffic error, he has failed to give way, you as parents are qualitatively liable for your son's traffic error. The driver will therefore have to be (partially) compensated. If you, like almost everyone else, have a personal liability insurance (AVP), you can report the damage to your insurer. They will settle the damage with your counterparty for and on your behalf.

Lawyer

Application of the reflex action in cases such as this - damage to a motor vehicle due to the 'fault' of a non-motor vehicle under the age of 14, without invoking force majeure - leads to the conclusion that the damage suffered falls under the so-called Betriebsgefahr, because in the other case persons lack protection against the consequences of the realisation of dangers associated with driving a motor vehicle. Or simply: if the entire damage would have remained for own account by a division according to own fault arrangement in the case of a collision with a 14 year old +; it remains so in the case of the fairness correction via the reflex action. In that correction, the question is important whether your son is insured for this damage, if so and you feel obliged to take on the damage or part of it, you can of course inform this insurer.

Lawyer

Because the questioner may be confused by too many legal terms: The discussion among the lawyers here seems to arise from two distinct situations: 1. the minor claims damages and 2. the motorist suffers damages. IF your child had suffered damage, the driver would in all probability have been liable. With regard to the damage to the motorist, I agree with Mrs. Smit. You may be liable for this, depending on the assessment of the various criteria (the website Mrs. Smit refers to provides a good insight).

Lawyer

Dear, the discussion is indeed that of the books and the unruly practice, but still for lawyers I quoted Spier et al. 'Obligations from the law and compensation', p 151, second paragraph (second edition) The ruling of the Supreme Court that I mentioned earlier also seems to build on this in terms of doctrine, which of course does not alter the fact that judges sometimes judge differently.

Lawyer

Dear Mrs. Martens, After a few other 'discussions', the following. The questions on this website have been placed to actually gain a first insight into the possibilities. The discussions between lawyers do not contribute to this, at least not the discussions as I have encountered them so far. The questioner really doesn't care about a ruling by the Supreme Court, if it can be found or understood. Quotes from Spier et al. also don't serve the questioner. I am not saying that you should always agree with the advice or positions of other lawyers, but keep in mind the purpose of this website and thus the expectations of those asking questions. Thank you very much.