Outsurance sues cyclist

[sharkbait]

So a cyclist is cycling down a parking lot and a guy in his car reverses out infront of the cyclist, the cyclist had nowhere to go but to hit the car. Ok, back window broken and a small dent on the boot. Two months down the line the cyclist receives a letter from Outsurance to pay R16K + for the damages caused. Reasons: the cyclist was in the wrong as he should have avoided the reversing car. After calling the number on the letter it was said that the driver said he was stationary and the cyclist rode into the back of the vechile. I said but he was reversing out and the laywer said that I have to prove that the vechile was moving. My question is how is this possible to sue the cyclist? To prove that the vechile was moving is out of the question so what remains is for the cyclist to just fork out the money. When has the law changed in favour of the driver? Any advise?

[VicanZA]

speak to a lawyer dont think u gonna get the right advice on the hub! u should of clapped him...

[ScottCM]

Just to confirm, you are said cyclist?

[ScottCM]

And who's paying for the damages to the bike?

[Mojoman]

No cameras in the parking lot area/Shop fronts?

[flat29]

Did you report it to the police and do you have a case number? If you did the go see a lawyer and let them help you

[Wil6]

Eye witnesses? Your word against his?

[GBguy]

Sharkbait - I'm not a lawyer, and you may get a very different answer from one. However...

 

To me this is typical insurance company bullying tactics. Their first course of action is to send an invoice to the other guy (the one who is not their client) and see if he pays.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd ignore it completely. One of two things will happen. Either you will never hear from them again, or you will be summonsed (after a bunch of threatening letters) to appear in court. When you do, after he has finished laughing, the magistrate will say he finds it difficult to imagine a cyclist deliberately riding into a stationary vehicle, and also it boils down to your word against the other guy, so stop wasting the court's time.

[Blackbeard]

Lawyers' letters have no special legal value. They serve merely to generate fees and to frighten the uninformed.

[gummibear]

No cameras in the parking lot area/Shop fronts?

 

Pretty sure there must be a camera somewhere.

Problem.....is the footage still available?

[atilla]

Sharkbait - Outsurance is sueing you for damages, thus they are the Plaintiff in the matter, thus the onus of proof (and to begin) rests on their shoulders.

 

You dont have to proof that their vehehicle was moving.

 

We can take this to pm if you want me to assist you furter.

[awesme]

hehehe

 

with costs of today's bikes in consideration, counter sue the guy,

 

say he was reversing, into Cyclist path, without looking, you claiming damages to your bike.

 

and with the cost of bikes today, that can easily be R30K plus.

 

G

[sharkbait]

Just to confirm, you are said cyclist?

Nope - family

[Steven Knoetze (sk27)]

I'm sorry but my logic says that he must then prove that you were moving and that it wasn't him that just drove into you when he reversed without looking.

I would take it further, besides bicycle hits car and it's R16K damage, whatever!!!

[Falco]

Don't ignore the claim.

 

Write them a letter explaining the real version of what happened, and make it clear that you do not consider yourself to be at fault, and that you will defend any action that they institute.

 

Unless they are very sure they can prove otherwise (with witnesses), they won't summons you.

[DIPSLICK]

Don't ignore the claim.

 

Write them a letter explaining the real version of what happened, and make it clear that you do not consider yourself to be at fault, and that you will defend any action that they institute.

 

Unless they are very sure they can prove otherwise (with witnesses), they won't summons you.

sounds like solid advice,