Work mate car crash, his drunk mate grabbed the wheel
Discussion
UPDATED
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed into a tree, car is totalled.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
The Drunk mate want to go to a certain pub they was driving past past..
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed into a tree, car is totalled.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
The Drunk mate want to go to a certain pub they was driving past past..
Edited by cirian75 on Monday 4th August 11:57
cirian75 said:
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Assuming this is real , your work mate and his friend now have problems.His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Deliberate or intentional acts probably mean cover is null and void but this may also depend on what the workmates insurance policy says in terms of their exclusions.
I doubt there are words in it about a drunken mate.
If cover is declared null and void then presumably the Pub will claim against the workmate and his friend personally unless the RTA act is still deemed to be in force irrespective but I'm pretty much guessing on that aspect.
No idea as to whether workmate friend will be prosecuted given time elapse and story etc.
alscar said:
cirian75 said:
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Assuming this is real , your work mate and his friend now have problems.His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Deliberate or intentional acts probably mean cover is null and void but this may also depend on what the workmates insurance policy says in terms of their exclusions.
I doubt there are words in it about a drunken mate.
If cover is declared null and void then presumably the Pub will claim against the workmate and his friend personally unless the RTA act is still deemed to be in force irrespective but I'm pretty much guessing on that aspect.
No idea as to whether workmate friend will be prosecuted given time elapse and story etc.
cirian75 said:
alscar said:
cirian75 said:
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Assuming this is real , your work mate and his friend now have problems.His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed the car into the front of a pub.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
Deliberate or intentional acts probably mean cover is null and void but this may also depend on what the workmates insurance policy says in terms of their exclusions.
I doubt there are words in it about a drunken mate.
If cover is declared null and void then presumably the Pub will claim against the workmate and his friend personally unless the RTA act is still deemed to be in force irrespective but I'm pretty much guessing on that aspect.
No idea as to whether workmate friend will be prosecuted given time elapse and story etc.
Third party insurance is still in force because it covers the car irrespective of the situation, eg if it were stolen and crashed into street furniture, the council would go after the insurer based on the car plate, not worrying too much about who the driver is.
Next steps depends if you want to make it a police matter or not.
Its certainly unusual, I'll give you that! I vaguely remember a case years ago where two disabled people (who were each individually physically unable to drive a car) stole one and somehow operated the controls together to drive it, they were probably drunk at the time but it was a right laugh I bet, until the inevitable happened. The police did them both for dangerous driving, maybe other offences.
So based on that, I'd say at the point your drunken mate grabbed the wheel, he was also "driving" by virtue of being in partial control of the car. So the offences and liability flow from there onwards. But obviously he could/would be looking at a DD charge - maybe irrelevant now with time passing.
Were the police called at the time, and if so did they attend?
Next steps depends if you want to make it a police matter or not.
Its certainly unusual, I'll give you that! I vaguely remember a case years ago where two disabled people (who were each individually physically unable to drive a car) stole one and somehow operated the controls together to drive it, they were probably drunk at the time but it was a right laugh I bet, until the inevitable happened. The police did them both for dangerous driving, maybe other offences.
So based on that, I'd say at the point your drunken mate grabbed the wheel, he was also "driving" by virtue of being in partial control of the car. So the offences and liability flow from there onwards. But obviously he could/would be looking at a DD charge - maybe irrelevant now with time passing.
Were the police called at the time, and if so did they attend?
cirian75 said:
UPDATED
Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed into a tree, car is totalled.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
The Drunk mate want to go to a certain pub they was driving past past..
Just in case....Work mate weekend disaster.
His drunken mate grabbed the wheel, turned it hard left, crashed into a tree, car is totalled.
I assuming the insurance will pay out, and the friend should be prosecuted by the plod?
The Drunk mate want to go to a certain pub they was driving past past..
Edited by cirian75 on Monday 4th August 11:57
With the updated information whilst it possibly deals with the RTA side of things ( thanks to Paul's explanation ) I'm not sure it makes the case any more unusual from the point of whether coverage is in force as regards the car damage itself.
If mate of workmate is deemed to be in control of car then can't see how the Insurer will do anything other than to deny cover -but I cannot see how he will be deemed to be in charge.
If workmate is deemed in control but his drunk passenger forced the incident from which he had no ability to do anything other than crash then I would assume that subject to police prosecution ( or at least informed ) of workmates's mate he may have a chance that his Insurer will still pay out.
If on the other hand workmate says or does nothing other than reports the fact he totalled the car because ( insert reason ) , the police aren't informed and he doesn't mention drunk passenger then obviously a chance the claim will be paid anyway.
But I'm no legal expert.
If mate of workmate is deemed to be in control of car then can't see how the Insurer will do anything other than to deny cover -but I cannot see how he will be deemed to be in charge.
If workmate is deemed in control but his drunk passenger forced the incident from which he had no ability to do anything other than crash then I would assume that subject to police prosecution ( or at least informed ) of workmates's mate he may have a chance that his Insurer will still pay out.
If on the other hand workmate says or does nothing other than reports the fact he totalled the car because ( insert reason ) , the police aren't informed and he doesn't mention drunk passenger then obviously a chance the claim will be paid anyway.
But I'm no legal expert.
I think they'll have to pay out....
..for the damage to the tree.
Was either person breathalysed?
I imagine a driver might have some level of responsibility for controlling his passengers and allowing people in the front seat when they are that drunk/stupid.
If the insurer knew the full facts, might they pursue the 'passenger' to recover what they pay out?
I'd also suggest that grabbing the steering wheel is some kind of criminal offence and being drunk won't be a defence?
Had the driver been drinking at all?
I'd say the driver needs to think very carefully about what he tells anyone.
In bygone days, in some circles, this might have been settled by the passenger paying for the car and nothing being said!
..for the damage to the tree.
Was either person breathalysed?
I imagine a driver might have some level of responsibility for controlling his passengers and allowing people in the front seat when they are that drunk/stupid.
If the insurer knew the full facts, might they pursue the 'passenger' to recover what they pay out?
I'd also suggest that grabbing the steering wheel is some kind of criminal offence and being drunk won't be a defence?
Had the driver been drinking at all?
I'd say the driver needs to think very carefully about what he tells anyone.
In bygone days, in some circles, this might have been settled by the passenger paying for the car and nothing being said!
I assume the drunken passenger was attempting to navigate towards the selected pub, rather than deliberately attempting to hit a tree.
I don't see why this would be considered deliberate. It was a accident caused by idiocy; surely an insurance would have to pay out. Then possibly consider whether they should be recovering costs from the passenger for negligence or whatever the correct term is.
I don't see why this would be considered deliberate. It was a accident caused by idiocy; surely an insurance would have to pay out. Then possibly consider whether they should be recovering costs from the passenger for negligence or whatever the correct term is.
I think honesty is the best policy here, the car insurer doesn't need to work very hard to get out of the claim so you should be gathering evidence about the condition of the drunk mate, find someone from the last pub who can testify to his drunkeness.
Assuming the driver wasn't also intoxicated the only hope of getting the vehicle repaired, etc is to throw 'the mate' soon to be ex-mate under the bus.
Assuming the driver wasn't also intoxicated the only hope of getting the vehicle repaired, etc is to throw 'the mate' soon to be ex-mate under the bus.
Inbox said:
I think honesty is the best policy here, the car insurer doesn't need to work very hard to get out of the claim so you should be gathering evidence about the condition of the drunk mate, find someone from the last pub who can testify to his drunkeness.
Assuming the driver wasn't also intoxicated the only hope of getting the vehicle repaired, etc is to throw 'the mate' soon to be ex-mate under the bus.
They didn't hit the pub, it was a tree and some bushes near to the pub, how close I don't know.Assuming the driver wasn't also intoxicated the only hope of getting the vehicle repaired, etc is to throw 'the mate' soon to be ex-mate under the bus.
See the pics now, the car is not as bad as 1st indicated, bumper, grill and stuff just under the grill, but 100% still a write off due the age,
cirian75 said:
They didn't hit the pub, it was a tree and some bushes near to the pub, how close I don't know.
See the pics now, the car is not as bad as 1st indicated, bumper, grill and stuff just under the grill, but 100% still a write off due the age,
Only an insurance company can write off a car. You yourself (well, your mate) could scrap it if they choose, but its not quite the same.See the pics now, the car is not as bad as 1st indicated, bumper, grill and stuff just under the grill, but 100% still a write off due the age,
Edited by paul_c123 on Monday 4th August 15:32
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff