Trailer wheel fell off - who's to blame?

Trailer wheel fell off - who's to blame?

Author
Discussion

frisbee

4,956 posts

109 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
I've no idea whether his insurance will pay out, as I don't know if he was negligent or not. What I will bet on is that he won't have any comeback on the manufacture / supplie rof the bearings.

Everybody isn't insured, he could quite easily not be insured as he might not have covered himself for towing.
The world doesn't work that way. Maybe it wasn't the bearing manufacturer but the company that supplied raw materials to the bearing supplier? Where does the chain end?

The poor guy driving along minding his own business behind the trailer isn't going to embark on a quest to discover who is liable.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
Gavia said:
Your insurance will only pay out if you were negligent. If you've done nothing wrong then they won't pay out. If you were negligent then they'll pay out, but it's up to them to make that decision, not you.
How about a £20 bet?
On the basis everybody is insured, then the insurance of the guy with the trailer WILL pay out on this.
Can I ask this question. You have an old car on your drive, that you are using for spares and not driving. It isn't taxed or insured, quite legally. Whilst you're out, a lorry uses your drive to do a 3 point turn, foot slips off brake on to accelerator, he ploughs into your car, pushing it thru the hedge into next door neighbours Aston Martin. Lorry driver panics, a fleas the scene. Can't be traced.

Now, your car has hit the Aston, no question. Done £20K of damage. Aston driver is innocent. Are you going to pay him £20K, even though you weren't negligent and have done nothing wrong. Of course you're not. You have no legal obligation to do so.
If you had insurance on the car, your insurer wouldn't pay for the Aston either. Because you weren't negligent, and the third party section of your policy only covers damage caused by your negligence.

FACT....just because your property damages someone else's property, it doesn't always mean it's your responsibility.

This legal principle has been around for centuries. I'm not sure why people get so irate about it, or think it's "everything that's wrong with the world today". It's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!

OddCat

2,515 posts

170 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
it's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!
Blimey. You must be really old then ! That must be why you are so knowledgeable and wise.....

Maybe, in your scenario, the old car could be classed as a garden ornament and a claim made under the owners house insurance laugh. Not quite a 'like for like' situation though. The offending lorry driver has scarpered but in the trailer scenario the offender hasn't.....

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
OddCat said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
it's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!
Blimey. You must be really old then ! That must be why you are so knowledgeable and wise.....

Maybe, in your scenario, the old car could be classed as a garden ornament and a claim made under the owners house insurance laugh. Not quite a 'like for like' situation though. The offending lorry driver has scarpered but in the trailer scenario the offender hasn't.....
It's exactly a like for like situation. Was the owner of the item that caused the damage negligent? That's the question that needs answering.

KungFuPanda

4,324 posts

169 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
OddCat said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
it's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!
Blimey. You must be really old then ! That must be why you are so knowledgeable and wise.....

Maybe, in your scenario, the old car could be classed as a garden ornament and a claim made under the owners house insurance laugh. Not quite a 'like for like' situation though. The offending lorry driver has scarpered but in the trailer scenario the offender hasn't.....
You're still not getting the point. The gnome wouldn't have been negligent so once again, there would be no payout.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
cmaguire said:
Gavia said:
Your insurance will only pay out if you were negligent. If you've done nothing wrong then they won't pay out. If you were negligent then they'll pay out, but it's up to them to make that decision, not you.
How about a £20 bet?
On the basis everybody is insured, then the insurance of the guy with the trailer WILL pay out on this.
Can I ask this question. You have an old car on your drive, that you are using for spares and not driving. It isn't taxed or insured, quite legally. Whilst you're out, a lorry uses your drive to do a 3 point turn, foot slips off brake on to accelerator, he ploughs into your car, pushing it thru the hedge into next door neighbours Aston Martin. Lorry driver panics, a fleas the scene. Can't be traced.

Now, your car has hit the Aston, no question. Done £20K of damage. Aston driver is innocent. Are you going to pay him £20K, even though you weren't negligent and have done nothing wrong. Of course you're not. You have no legal obligation to do so.
If you had insurance on the car, your insurer wouldn't pay for the Aston either. Because you weren't negligent, and the third party section of your policy only covers damage caused by your negligence.

FACT....just because your property damages someone else's property, it doesn't always mean it's your responsibility.

This legal principle has been around for centuries. I'm not sure why people get so irate about it, or think it's "everything that's wrong with the world today". It's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
cmaguire said:
Gavia said:
Your insurance will only pay out if you were negligent. If you've done nothing wrong then they won't pay out. If you were negligent then they'll pay out, but it's up to them to make that decision, not you.
How about a £20 bet?
On the basis everybody is insured, then the insurance of the guy with the trailer WILL pay out on this.
Can I ask this question. You have an old car on your drive, that you are using for spares and not driving. It isn't taxed or insured, quite legally. Whilst you're out, a lorry uses your drive to do a 3 point turn, foot slips off brake on to accelerator, he ploughs into your car, pushing it thru the hedge into next door neighbours Aston Martin. Lorry driver panics, a fleas the scene. Can't be traced.

Now, your car has hit the Aston, no question. Done £20K of damage. Aston driver is innocent. Are you going to pay him £20K, even though you weren't negligent and have done nothing wrong. Of course you're not. You have no legal obligation to do so.
If you had insurance on the car, your insurer wouldn't pay for the Aston either. Because you weren't negligent, and the third party section of your policy only covers damage caused by your negligence.

FACT....just because your property damages someone else's property, it doesn't always mean it's your responsibility.

This legal principle has been around for centuries. I'm not sure why people get so irate about it, or think it's "everything that's wrong with the world today". It's been this way in the UK almost since Magna Carta, which was 802 years ago from memory!!!
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).
Why would I take the bet. I have no idea if the trailer owner is negligent or not. I know nothing about trailer wheels, bearings or whatever. I don't make sweeping statements about things I know nothing about, otherwise I'll end up looking like an idiot.

I know a little bit about law of tort.


grumpy52

5,565 posts

165 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Anybody that spends a lot of time on the roads will see trailers of some sort with wheels missing .Usually the smaller tip run type or caravans . Most users of car trailers will do a check around a trailer after a few miles from the start of a journey,load security/tie downs and a heat check of the hubs .
I have had experience of wheel bearings failing within a hundred miles of being fitted ,usually down to cheapo fake parts .Many in genuine factory looking packaging ,lots of stuff came out of Turkey a few years ago .
Proving it was a manufacturer fault will always be expensive .

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).
What's this intercompany agreement? Not bothered about the name, just what it is.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
cmaguire said:
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).
What's this intercompany agreement? Not bothered about the name, just what it is.
I think he's referring to knock for knock agreements between insurers not to pursue each other for costs, that were scrapped in the 1980s. But as the poster is still living in 1973, he hasn't found out yet.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Gavia said:
cmaguire said:
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).
What's this intercompany agreement? Not bothered about the name, just what it is.
I think he's referring to knock for knock agreements between insurers not to pursue each other for costs, that were scrapped in the 1980s. But as the poster is still living in 1973, he hasn't found out yet.
That is what I was thinking of at the time, whether it would occur (or a variation of it) I have no idea as I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the insurance industry.
A quick search seems somewhat at odds with your claim that it was scrapped in the 80's however.

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
That is what I was thinking of at the time, whether it would occur (or a variation of it) I have no idea as I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the insurance industry.
A quick search seems somewhat at odds with your claim that it was scrapped in the 80's however.
I googled it and found this from20 years ago talking about the demise of the knock for knock agreement

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/motor-insurance...

I also found lots and lots where people were calling 50/50 liability "knock for knock" when that isn't the case.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Gavia said:
cmaguire said:
Feel free to take the bet, without trying to put words in my mouth, it was a one-line bet.
There's a fair chance you'll win by default if the driver of the vehicle hit has fully-comprehensive insurance, and his company shell out on a no-fault claim because of some inter-company agreement (whatever it's called).
What's this intercompany agreement? Not bothered about the name, just what it is.
I think he's referring to knock for knock agreements between insurers not to pursue each other for costs, that were scrapped in the 1980s. But as the poster is still living in 1973, he hasn't found out yet.
That is what I was thinking of at the time, whether it would occur (or a variation of it) I have no idea as I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the insurance industry.
Yet you seem to know how they would settle a claim where liability hadn't been established?

TwigtheWonderkid

43,246 posts

149 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
I googled it and found this from20 years ago talking about the demise of the knock for knock agreement

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/motor-insurance...

I also found lots and lots where people were calling 50/50 liability "knock for knock" when that isn't the case.
Yes, lot's of people wrongly think 50/50 and k4k are one and the same.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
I googled it and found this from20 years ago talking about the demise of the knock for knock agreement

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/motor-insurance...

I also found lots and lots where people were calling 50/50 liability "knock for knock" when that isn't the case.
I saw that one too. There are a few others suggesting it continued after that in some form until at least 2009.
Either way, it was the concept of a reciprocal agreement of some kind I was referring to so getting hung up on 'knock-for-knock' doesn't really matter. 50:50 or whatever, who knows what they cook up amongst themselves behind closed doors. The shareholders and their wages are what they care about.

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yet you seem to know how they would settle a claim where liability hadn't been established?
No.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Common sense says they should settle, I think they should settle out of common decency. If they were my insurance company I would be pissed at them if they didn't, but that's not up to me.
What they are actually obliged to do, and what they actually do hasn't transpired yet.
You can still take the bet. I'll also bet you that a wheel never falls off my trailer either.

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
No.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Common sense says they should settle, I think they should settle out of common decency. If they were my insurance company I would be pissed at them if they didn't, but that's not up to me.
What they are actually obliged to do, and what they actually do hasn't transpired yet.
You can still take the bet. I'll also bet you that a wheel never falls off my trailer either.
Hang on, on the one hand you're talking about common decency and then on the other you're laying into insurance companies, wages and shareholders. Are you as keen to lose your NCD?

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
Hang on, on the one hand you're talking about common decency and then on the other you're laying into insurance companies, wages and shareholders. Are you as keen to lose your NCD?
Insurance companies are no different to any other big business. The public image they promote is just that, often far removed from the reality, there are exposee programs regularly showing that. But the common link is that they all look after the executives packages and the shareholders whatever else goes on.

Gavia

7,627 posts

90 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
cmaguire said:
Gavia said:
Hang on, on the one hand you're talking about common decency and then on the other you're laying into insurance companies, wages and shareholders. Are you as keen to lose your NCD?
Insurance companies are no different to any other big business. The public image they promote is just that, often far removed from the reality, there are exposee programs regularly showing that. But the common link is that they all look after the executives packages and the shareholders whatever else goes on.
What about your NCD? Are you sacrificing that to common decency?

cmaguire

3,589 posts

108 months

Monday 29th May 2017
quotequote all
Gavia said:
What about your NCD? Are you sacrificing that to common decency?
The first one is free, so probably not. But if I had already chalked one up then yes, I would. Absolutely. I don't expect innocent parties to lose out on my behalf, never have, never will, and have lost money in the past because of that.
I'll take that on the chin and continue with the contempt I have for those that say one thing and do another when it is going to cost them.