Blown lorry tyre hits my car, who's at fault ?
Discussion
Was listening to a consumer phone-in a the radio a while back. On a similar type of logic, someone phoned in having had a water damage in his flat from the flat above him. He was asking for advice as he had been told by the other properties insurance to claim off his own home insurance, and wasn't too happy. The expert said that if it was due to an over-filled bath or tap left running, then the other party should be liable. But if it was a leak then he would have to claim off his own insurance.
The caller replied "But that's surely why he has insurance" for the expert to tell him "No, thats why YOU have insurance"
Doesn't quite seem fair, but nor do a lot of things, good luck.
The caller replied "But that's surely why he has insurance" for the expert to tell him "No, thats why YOU have insurance"
Doesn't quite seem fair, but nor do a lot of things, good luck.
speedyguy said:
blueflash said:
If something had fallen off the truck it would classed as an insecure load and the driver would of been negligent and to blame , also if the truck was overweight ( which would have to be proven and in my mind doubtful ! ) , then also the driver is negligent .
quote]
Lots of trailers are sealed at depots, how does a driver check the internal load ?
If a/every site doesn't have a weighbridge (costing £££££££££) how does a driver check his axle weights are not over due to poor loading, even though the truck weight may be under max,??
The same way that any private driver will do.quote]
Lots of trailers are sealed at depots, how does a driver check the internal load ?
If a/every site doesn't have a weighbridge (costing £££££££££) how does a driver check his axle weights are not over due to poor loading, even though the truck weight may be under max,??
If im moving something in my van and I think its possible that I will go overweight then I will count up what im carrying and estimate what it weighs. If I think its going to get close to being overweight then I will take things out if I think its needed.
If somebody else were loading my vehicle then I would have to trust that they know that maximum capacity and the weight of the load.
If this were a supermarket then I would trust that there transport manager understood this.
If im moving a load a cement for pikey builders then I would check it myself.
If your driving then its your responsibility.
Wheels do not usually just come undone, only if the nuts weren't done up properly in the first place, which is negligence.
If a tyre bursts due to a puncture, the driver hasn't done anything wrong. Therefore, I do not believe that a claim against him would be successful, unless you could prove that the tyre wasn't properly maintained in the first place.
Tim
If a tyre bursts due to a puncture, the driver hasn't done anything wrong. Therefore, I do not believe that a claim against him would be successful, unless you could prove that the tyre wasn't properly maintained in the first place.
Tim
mgtony said:
Was listening to a consumer phone-in a the radio a while back. On a similar type of logic, someone phoned in having had a water damage in his flat from the flat above him. He was asking for advice as he had been told by the other properties insurance to claim off his own home insurance, and wasn't too happy. The expert said that if it was due to an over-filled bath or tap left running, then the other party should be liable. But if it was a leak then he would have to claim off his own insurance.
The caller replied "But that's surely why he has insurance" for the expert to tell him "No, thats why YOU have insurance"
Doesn't quite seem fair, but nor do a lot of things, good luck.
I might be wrong but.....The caller replied "But that's surely why he has insurance" for the expert to tell him "No, thats why YOU have insurance"
Doesn't quite seem fair, but nor do a lot of things, good luck.
Assuming I lived in a flat and it was my leaky pipe that damaged downstairs flat I'd feel obliged to help sort it out. Ultimately I'd expect my flat insurance to cover such a third party claim.
catman said:
Wheels do not usually just come undone, only if the nuts weren't done up properly in the first place, which is negligence.
If a tyre bursts due to a puncture, the driver hasn't done anything wrong. Therefore, I do not believe that a claim against him would be successful, unless you could prove that the tyre wasn't properly maintained in the first place.
Either way - if it was my car and the wheel/tyre damaged something or someone else I'd feel obliged to pay up for it and I'd pass that obligation onto the insurance I pay. If a tyre bursts due to a puncture, the driver hasn't done anything wrong. Therefore, I do not believe that a claim against him would be successful, unless you could prove that the tyre wasn't properly maintained in the first place.
I wouldn't be standing around saying 'tough, your problem'
saaby93 said:
I'm not sure what negligence has to do with it?
If a wheel comes off my car (whether it's just come undone or something failed) and it hits something or worse someone, I expect the insurance I pay to pay out.
Otherwise am I personally liable?
Negligence is a fundamental principle of tort. That is why it comes into it ! If a wheel comes off my car (whether it's just come undone or something failed) and it hits something or worse someone, I expect the insurance I pay to pay out.
Otherwise am I personally liable?
If a nail punctures your tyre and it comes off, then neither YOU nor your insurer are liable (lots of assumptions being made). It is "an accident". No negligence, no liability.
This is how our law works. In some countries, like Spain, there is strict liability for such cases. And perhaps it might be a good thing if we did the same. But we don't.
saaby93 said:
speedyguy said:
saaby93 said:
I'd have thought you could claim that the tyre wasnt maintained properly - isnt that the usual reason for failure?
No, Do you have any evidence to the contrary.
Vehicle checks daily, inspections monthly etc, prob more than a car ever get.
But that still doesn't stop wheels (not tyres) coming off frequently as the daily checks may not be done properly.
They check the nuts at VOSA inspection points but theyre not too common
If a wheel comes off and it damages something surely the wheel insurance would be expected to pay out. Isnt that what insurance is for?
Vosa are opening more super depots and more 24/7 working for your info
.If a wheel comes off that is probably negligent, a tyre probably isn't, but i'm not a lawyer
Holst said:
The same way that any private driver will do.
If im moving something in my van and I think its possible that I will go overweight then I will count up what im carrying and estimate what it weighs. If I think its going to get close to being overweight then I will take things out if I think its needed.
If somebody else were loading my vehicle then I would have to trust that they know that maximum capacity and the weight of the load.
If this were a supermarket then I would trust that there transport manager understood this.
If im moving a load a cement for pikey builders then I would check it myself.
If your driving then its your responsibility.
I was going to go into it on the 1st post but didn't bother, maybe i should of :#).If im moving something in my van and I think its possible that I will go overweight then I will count up what im carrying and estimate what it weighs. If I think its going to get close to being overweight then I will take things out if I think its needed.
If somebody else were loading my vehicle then I would have to trust that they know that maximum capacity and the weight of the load.
If this were a supermarket then I would trust that there transport manager understood this.
If im moving a load a cement for pikey builders then I would check it myself.
If your driving then its your responsibility.
It's easy if the load is 25000 Tv's at 100kg each no probs, but when you start going into mixed loads/general haulage and moving loads i'e concrete mixers, you get into a whole new scenario over axle weights which cannot be checked so easily, if you have to rely on the transport manager/yard loader you could get in big trouble i suppose.
I was discussing this with a colleague last night (we both have LGV c+e licences) and he was mentioning the amount of "loading transgressions" carried out at certain depots of "national" hauliers.
It came up after we were moving 500 tray's of "fishy" products that came out of the rear doors of an artic on the M6 last week.
The BIB rocked up possibly hoping for an insecure load ticket, there were all sorts of issues (here is not the place to discuss them
) but the driver had no way of knowing the transport managers lackeys at loading may or may not have done their job properly . 
They were cleared in less than 10 mins to keep you moving
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th January 22:12
speedyguy said:
It came up after we were moving 500 tray's of "fishy" products that came out of the rear doors of an artic on the M6 last week.
but if the fishy products had clouted someone or something I take it the haulage co has third party insurance to cover it?Its an accidental risk which is what insurance is for.. isnt it
Or is it 'tough, not our problem'
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 7th January 23:06
nywa
Its an accidental risk which is what insurance is for.. isnt it
Or is it 'tough, not our problem'
I suppose the company/haulier were negligent at some stage, i would go with claim from haulier, then they take it up with the loader etc if not same firm, as for a tyre, there is probably no way of finding a cause, therefore an act of god maybe 
If you hit debris/load caused by possible negligence (does that include a load strap snapping after a sudden manouvere to avoid a last minute slip exit dash ?) you claim from who lost it or if you don't know who lost it maybe MIB ?
Anyway i thought all insurance worked on a 50/50 basis to save costs
saaby93 said:
speedyguy said:
It came up after we were moving 500 tray's of "fishy" products that came out of the rear doors of an artic on the M6 last week.
but if the fishy products had clouted someone or something I take it the haulage co has third party insurance to cover it?Its an accidental risk which is what insurance is for.. isnt it
Or is it 'tough, not our problem'
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 7th January 23:06
If you hit debris/load caused by possible negligence (does that include a load strap snapping after a sudden manouvere to avoid a last minute slip exit dash ?) you claim from who lost it or if you don't know who lost it maybe MIB ?
Anyway i thought all insurance worked on a 50/50 basis to save costs
This was asked recently on another forum. Again there were a lot of people that could not grasp the concept that without negligence there is no claim.
http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/articles/Successiv...
The above document gives examples of where no negligence could be attached to the driver of a vehicle in an accident caused by the driver sufferring a sudden illness/death.
Extract:
Ryan v Young [1938] 1 All ER 522
Driver appeared to be of sound health but suffered with fatty degeneration of the heart. Medical examination could not have indicated any liability to sudden collapse. Held: driver not liable.
However, the position is not as straight forward if the driver has a history of ill health. It may be possible to establish that he was negligent in driving if he had reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Establishing this may be difficult and will certainly require a detailed consideration of the driver's medical history, and in particular their GP notes and also making enquiries of the DVLA.
See Waugh v James K Allan Ltd. [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep. (House of Lords):
The driver if a lorry was suddenly disabled by an attack of coronary thrombosis which killed him. The lorry mounted the pavement and struck the Appellant ….
Fifteen minutes before the accident the driver had been taken ill when loading the lorry but had recovered, at least partially, and had driven off. He had driven a quarter of a mile when the accident occurred. He had gastric attacks from time to time in the past but otherwise enjoyed good health.
Held: A motor vehicle is potentially a lethal weapon; there vests upon every driver of such a vehicle a serious duty owed to his fellow human beings not to drive the vehicle on a public road if he has or should have reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, the driver was not negligent in taking the lorry out; he had no reason to suppose that his illness was not another gastric attack which, when it passed off, left no serious disability.
Jones v. Denison [1971] RTR 174, CA.
The Defendant was driving his car when it ran out of control on to the pavement, striking the Plaintiff and injuring her. His defence to this claim for damages was that he had temporarily lost control due to a “blackout”, i.e. loss of consciousness. His medical history including a coronary thrombosis six years earlier and a slight cerebral thrombosis. His doctor had not advised he should not drive. He also had four short blackouts in the previous ten months but had been unaware of them: his wife knew of them but did not tell him of them until after the accident. In the Court below the Judge accepted the Defendant’s evidence that he did not know of the blackouts before the accident and held that he had discharged the burden of proof on him. His wife was not called to give evidence because of illness. On appeal it was argued that without the wife’s evidence as to when, and where and how the blackouts had taken place it was an undefended case.
Held: the Judge had properly directed himself that the real issue was whether the Defendant ought to have realised from what had happened in the past that he ought not to have been driving. On the evidence of the Defendant and his doctor there was no ground for saying he ought reasonably to have suspected that he was or might be subject to an attack such as he had had. The onus was on the Defendant and he had established his case. Appeal dismissed.
http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/articles/Successiv...
The above document gives examples of where no negligence could be attached to the driver of a vehicle in an accident caused by the driver sufferring a sudden illness/death.
Extract:
Ryan v Young [1938] 1 All ER 522
Driver appeared to be of sound health but suffered with fatty degeneration of the heart. Medical examination could not have indicated any liability to sudden collapse. Held: driver not liable.
However, the position is not as straight forward if the driver has a history of ill health. It may be possible to establish that he was negligent in driving if he had reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Establishing this may be difficult and will certainly require a detailed consideration of the driver's medical history, and in particular their GP notes and also making enquiries of the DVLA.
See Waugh v James K Allan Ltd. [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep. (House of Lords):
The driver if a lorry was suddenly disabled by an attack of coronary thrombosis which killed him. The lorry mounted the pavement and struck the Appellant ….
Fifteen minutes before the accident the driver had been taken ill when loading the lorry but had recovered, at least partially, and had driven off. He had driven a quarter of a mile when the accident occurred. He had gastric attacks from time to time in the past but otherwise enjoyed good health.
Held: A motor vehicle is potentially a lethal weapon; there vests upon every driver of such a vehicle a serious duty owed to his fellow human beings not to drive the vehicle on a public road if he has or should have reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, the driver was not negligent in taking the lorry out; he had no reason to suppose that his illness was not another gastric attack which, when it passed off, left no serious disability.
Jones v. Denison [1971] RTR 174, CA.
The Defendant was driving his car when it ran out of control on to the pavement, striking the Plaintiff and injuring her. His defence to this claim for damages was that he had temporarily lost control due to a “blackout”, i.e. loss of consciousness. His medical history including a coronary thrombosis six years earlier and a slight cerebral thrombosis. His doctor had not advised he should not drive. He also had four short blackouts in the previous ten months but had been unaware of them: his wife knew of them but did not tell him of them until after the accident. In the Court below the Judge accepted the Defendant’s evidence that he did not know of the blackouts before the accident and held that he had discharged the burden of proof on him. His wife was not called to give evidence because of illness. On appeal it was argued that without the wife’s evidence as to when, and where and how the blackouts had taken place it was an undefended case.
Held: the Judge had properly directed himself that the real issue was whether the Defendant ought to have realised from what had happened in the past that he ought not to have been driving. On the evidence of the Defendant and his doctor there was no ground for saying he ought reasonably to have suspected that he was or might be subject to an attack such as he had had. The onus was on the Defendant and he had established his case. Appeal dismissed.
Without reading the other posts (and this may be in the post above): youll have to establish that the operator was negligent. If the drivers record book shows that he noted a sidewall cut on his inspection that morning (or better yesterday morning), then you will have them. Also if the vehicle hasnt been inspected properly then your position will be stronger.
GC8 said:
Without reading the other posts (and this may be in the post above): youll have to establish that the operator was negligent. If the drivers record book shows that he noted a sidewall cut on his inspection that morning (or better yesterday morning), then you will have them. Also if the vehicle hasnt been inspected properly then your position will be stronger.
For all you know the failure was caused by running over a nail in the road, in which case surely it is negligence in failing to spot and avoid the said nail.rypt said:
GC8 said:
Without reading the other posts (and this may be in the post above): youll have to establish that the operator was negligent. If the drivers record book shows that he noted a sidewall cut on his inspection that morning (or better yesterday morning), then you will have them. Also if the vehicle hasnt been inspected properly then your position will be stronger.
For all you know the failure was caused by running over a nail in the road, in which case surely it is negligence in failing to spot and avoid the said nail.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff