No insurance question

[Odhran]

Totally hypothetically speaking here but: If someone was involved at an accident and was completely at fault causing serious injury to the 3rd party requiring surgery etc. what would happen to the third party? I take it they would be prosecuted for Driving without insurance, but what way would they be left with regards fixing their own car (not their fault)? Also is their case for a personal injury claim invalid or would they still be able to claim off the at fault driver?

[andburg]

There is a government fund that would need to be claimed against I believe

[LoonR1]

Which one is uninsured?

[Magic919]

I think the one that's been hit is uninsured here. That's the way I read it.

[andburg]

Odhran said:

Totally hypothetically speaking here but: If someone was involved at an accident and was completely at fault causing serious injury to the 3rd party requiring surgery etc. what would happen to the third party? I take it they would be prosecuted for Driving without insurance, but what way would they be left with regards fixing their own car (not their fault)? Also is their case for a personal injury claim invalid or would they still be able to claim off the at fault driver?

trying to make more sense of this as I feel I read it wrong first

Car 1 hits Car 2 and is at fault, insured
Car 2 is the innocent uninsured party and is not at fault, vehicle is damaged and has a personal injury.

IANAL but I'd expect car 2 to have a valid claim against car 1 regardless of his own insurance stance for both the damage and injury. Driver of car 2 would be paying for a legal team or accident management company if he did try to claim though as he has no insurance to handle this process. I'd say that driving without insurance charges would not be guaranteed either.

[LoonR1]

Magic919 said:

I think the one that's been hit is uninsured here. That's the way I read it.

Then the driver is a . Sadly their claim remains valid, whilst they've committed a criminal / motoring offence that doesn't absolve the other driver of their negligence in the civil matter.

[Aretnap]

Same deal if you drive into the back of someone who turns out to be drunk - he gets banned for drink driving, but you (or your insurer) still have to pay for the damage to his car. The fact that person A was breaking the law doesn't generally prevent them claiming against person B for negligence, provided the harm was caused by B's negligence rather than by A's lawbreaking.

[ging84]

LoonR1 said:

Which one is uninsured?

None of them
but hants rat was the first on the scene

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

Then the driver is a . Sadly their claim remains valid, whilst they've committed a criminal / motoring offence that doesn't absolve the other driver of their negligence in the civil matter.

^^^THIS.

[Odhran]

Thanks guys, just as I expected then.