Trailer wheel fell off - who's to blame?

[Gavia]

cmaguire said:

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.

Why's the first one free?

you're as innocent as the other driver if there's no negligence though.

The insurance company has never said that they'll pay out for something that they're not liable for though.

[cmaguire]

Gavia said:

Why's the first one free?

you're as innocent as the other driver if there's no negligence though.

The insurance company has never said that they'll pay out for something that they're not liable for though.

I can check my policy if you like, but from memory I don't lose NCD for the first claim.

Your second point, do you think it's fair if a wheel comes off your car or trailer, damages someone else's vehicle, and then they have to claim from their insurance?
I don't give a st about this negligence garbage in that particular scenario, I care about fair and unfair. I can't make the insurers do what I want but I can tell you what I think they should do to be fair.

If I kick up a stone in the road and that damages a vehicle behind then my view on that is different. I really hope I don't have to explain why.

[gianlu]

Genuine question to the OP: you asked in your opening post for point of views, but am I wrong you are knocking down any argument that is not yours?

In my opinion as the trailer was under the responsability of your friends, his insurance should pay and then seek to recover from the bearing manufacturer. This possibly after involving surveyors to understand if the failure is due to the installation. Or possibly won't as it is not worth.
So your friend, having a "contract" with both his insurance and the bearing supplier, could in theory, sue them both.

At no point I see why the third party who has been hit by the wheel should suffer.

In the example of the car in the drive being pushed across to the neighbour. car A (scrap) is no more than a garden ornament. Being pushed by a guilty part (who drove off) into Aston B.
This will be treated the same as if the car was hit in a car park with no note, insurance of car B will pay owner of car B. Then seek compensation through unknowns.
The one stuck would be the owner of the scrap car as I doubt it will be covered under home insurance (maybe should be declared depending on the value).

I cannot see much of a correlation between the 2 cases.

If someone (yet another car) was to it your friend trailer while parked causing the wheel to get dislodged and hit a car coming the other way, then I would see a similarity. And a clear (different) guilty part. But this is not the case.

[Gavia]

cmaguire said:

I can check my policy if you like, but from memory I don't lose NCD for the first claim.

Your second point, do you think it's fair if a wheel comes off your car or trailer, damages someone else's vehicle, and then they have to claim from their insurance?
I don't give a st about this negligence garbage in that particular scenario, I care about fair and unfair. I can't make the insurers do what I want but I can tell you what I think they should do to be fair.

If I kick up a stone in the road and that damages a vehicle behind then my view on that is different. I really hope I don't have to explain why.

I'd suggest you definitely check your policy

It's not about what's fair in your opinion or not. I don't think it would be fair that if I've done nothing wrong that I'm expected to pay for someone else's losses. Why should I lose my NCD for something that I've not done wrong? If I've been negligent then it's my fault and I'll pay, if I've not been negligent, then I won't pay.

Why is a stone in the road any different? You've still damaged someone else's vehicle. Your logic suggests common sense and decency would compel you to pay. Mine doesn't.

I also wouldn't pay if a tree blew down in a storm onto someone else's property, or my roof tiles fall onto someone's car in the same storm.

I would pay if I'd done something wrong, or rather I'd expect my insurance to cover it.

[OddCat]

Gavia said:

Why should I lose my NCD for something that I've not done wrong?

......but it is okay for the poor innocent bloke driving along minding his own business to lose his NCB for fixing the damage caused by someone else's errant wheel ?

Gavia said:

I also wouldn't pay if a tree blew down in a storm onto someone else's property, or my roof tiles fall onto someone's car in the same storm.

I would pay if I'd done something wrong, or rather I'd expect my insurance to cover it.

....as I understand it, if a tile blows off your roof and damages someone else's property then your house insurance covers it despite it being an "act of god".

A wheel coming off a trailer is not an act of god - but someone making a choice to drive a trailer that turns out to be defective. If they hadn't done that (driven with the trailer) then nothing bad would have happened. A lot more culpability than an act of god surely ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

OddCat said:

....as I understand it, if a tile blows off your roof and damages someone else's property then your house insurance covers it despite it being an "act of god".

You understand wrong. The third party liability section on any policy, household, motor, pet, boat, whatever policy you care to mention, is dependent on negligence. If the owner of the property that caused the damage isn't negligent, he isn't liable to pay the tp. If he has insurance, his insurers aren't liable to pay. They cover your legal liability, not your own particular moral code.

The circumstances are irrelevant. Lorry pushing your car into someone else's and driving off, wheel coming off trailer, flicking a stone up into someone's windscreen, tiles off roof, falling tree. If you are negligent, it's down to you, if you aren't, it isn't.

One or 2 specific legal exceptions apply to this. Keeping wild animals. If you keep wild animals, you are liable regardless of negligence. So if a meteor hits the tiger's cage, and the tiger gets out, tiger owner is liable for injuries caused by tiger, despite no negligence.

And some employer's liability circumstances, in certain industries, means employers are automatically liable for injury to employees.

But that's it. Those aside, no negligence, no legal liability.

[cmaguire]

Gavia said:

cmaguire said:

I can check my policy if you like, but from memory I don't lose NCD for the first claim.

Your second point, do you think it's fair if a wheel comes off your car or trailer, damages someone else's vehicle, and then they have to claim from their insurance?
I don't give a st about this negligence garbage in that particular scenario, I care about fair and unfair. I can't make the insurers do what I want but I can tell you what I think they should do to be fair.

If I kick up a stone in the road and that damages a vehicle behind then my view on that is different. I really hope I don't have to explain why.

I'd suggest you definitely check your policy

It's not about what's fair in your opinion or not. I don't think it would be fair that if I've done nothing wrong that I'm expected to pay for someone else's losses. Why should I lose my NCD for something that I've not done wrong? If I've been negligent then it's my fault and I'll pay, if I've not been negligent, then I won't pay.

Why is a stone in the road any different? You've still damaged someone else's vehicle. Your logic suggests common sense and decency would compel you to pay. Mine doesn't.

I also wouldn't pay if a tree blew down in a storm onto someone else's property, or my roof tiles fall onto someone's car in the same storm.

I would pay if I'd done something wrong, or rather I'd expect my insurance to cover it.

I have checked the policy. And I can have two claims within a 3 year period without losing my NCD or having it reduced.

Oddcat has mostly explained my take in his post above.
As for the stone or other road debris that my vehicle kicks up then that differs from a wheel falling off in that it is impossible for me to in any way have prevented that so it's not unreasonable for the recipient to put that down to bad luck. I have suffered this myself more than once and although pissed off (in one case I was only driving the car to dry it off after washing, and being an Australian import it turned out to have a tint not supplied here so I ended up having to get a screen made by Ricky Evans at £600) I didn't consider the other driver responsible.
If I were towing a trailer full of gravel and some was dropping onto the road occasionally through a small gap in the tailgate and one of these stones bounced up and broke the following vehicle's screen then I would consider that my responsibility.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

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.

Have you got any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim?

[Gavia]

cmaguire said:

I have checked the policy. And I can have two claims within a 3 year period without losing my NCD or having it reduced.

Oddcat has mostly explained my take in his post above.
As for the stone or other road debris that my vehicle kicks up then that differs from a wheel falling off in that it is impossible for me to in any way have prevented that so it's not unreasonable for the recipient to put that down to bad luck. I have suffered this myself more than once and although pissed off (in one case I was only driving the car to dry it off after washing, and being an Australian import it turned out to have a tint not supplied here so I ended up having to get a screen made by Ricky Evans at £600) I didn't consider the other driver responsible.
If I were towing a trailer full of gravel and some was dropping onto the road occasionally through a small gap in the tailgate and one of these stones bounced up and broke the following vehicle's screen then I would consider that my responsibility.

So you've protected your NCD then, it's not a standard set of cover on a policy

Your stance, remains your stance. It doesn't make it right. Twig has explained this very well to you, but you don't like what you're reading so are continuing to bang your drum about your own personal views.

The examples you give around stones are potentially right. One has no negligence, the second possibly does. Following that through though, many on here would suggest suing the lorry manufacturer, or the dealer, or the metal provider, or the designer, or someone else equally remote when there is zero chance of success on that.

[cmaguire]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cmaguire said:

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.

Have you got any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim?

No more than you have any evidence to back up their honesty I expect.
As I said, "who knows". Apart from those involved.

[Gavia]

OddCat said:

Gavia said:

Why should I lose my NCD for something that I've not done wrong?

......but it is okay for the poor innocent bloke driving along minding his own business to lose his NCB for fixing the damage caused by someone else's errant wheel ?

Gavia said:

I also wouldn't pay if a tree blew down in a storm onto someone else's property, or my roof tiles fall onto someone's car in the same storm.

I would pay if I'd done something wrong, or rather I'd expect my insurance to cover it.

....as I understand it, if a tile blows off your roof and damages someone else's property then your house insurance covers it despite it being an "act of god".

A wheel coming off a trailer is not an act of god - but someone making a choice to drive a trailer that turns out to be defective. If they hadn't done that (driven with the trailer) then nothing bad would have happened. A lot more culpability than an act of god surely ?

Point 1. Yes it is. That's why we buy insurance, to cover this eunforeseen incidents. Is it fair for the guy to los who's NCD for the theft of his car, or when someone crashes into it and then drives off? Losing NCD is far cheaper than paying for the whole car / repair in most situations.

Point 2. You don't understand it. Also, act of God

https://www.blackfriarsgroup.com/do-insurance-poli...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

If I were towing a trailer full of gravel and some was dropping onto the road occasionally through a small gap in the tailgate and one of these stones bounced up and broke the following vehicle's screen then I would consider that my responsibility.

You seem obsessed about what you think is your responsibility and what isn't. No one gives a fk, least of all your insurance company. They cover your legal liability, not what you do or don't feel responsible for.

[cmaguire]

Gavia said:

So you've protected your NCD then, it's not a standard set of cover on a policy

Your stance, remains your stance. It doesn't make it right. Twig has explained this very well to you, but you don't like what you're reading so are continuing to bang your drum about your own personal views.

The examples you give around stones are potentially right. One has no negligence, the second possibly does. Following that through though, many on here would suggest suing the lorry manufacturer, or the dealer, or the metal provider, or the designer, or someone else equally remote when there is zero chance of success on that.

My stance is morally right and I have paid out before by standing by that. Plenty wouldn't and I absolutely consider the way people these days will do anything to avoid culpability (whilst often verbally presenting a different persona) contemptuous. But that's life, and I don't imply what I think is the way things actually work in practise.

As to the OP's friend I expect he has bought cheap bearings or fitted them wrong or both. Had he bought SKF (for what is a critical component) and fitted them properly then I doubt the wheel would have fallen off in the first place. In my book that makes him culpable.
Maybe he didn't do any of the above and he is genuinely innocent. He's unlikely to admit any culpability if it exists, that much we can be sure of.

[Gavia]

cmaguire said:

My stance is morally right and I have paid out before by standing by that. Plenty wouldn't and I absolutely consider the way people these days will do anything to avoid culpability (whilst often verbally presenting a different persona) contemptuous. But that's life, and I don't imply what I think is the way things actually work in practise.

As to the OP's friend I expect he has bought cheap bearings or fitted them wrong or both. Had he bought SKF (for what is a critical component) and fitted them properly then I doubt the wheel would have fallen off in the first place. In my book that makes him culpable.
Maybe he didn't do any of the above and he is genuinely innocent. He's unlikely to admit any culpability if it exists, that much we can be sure of.

Morally right depends on your morals. How much damage are you willing to pay for personally? Would you cover next door's car if it was a £20000 write off if a tree fell over in your garden during a storm? Are your morals limited by cost of damage?

You're guessing on the bearing manufacturer, but fitting a low end product well, even if it fails is not negligent. Fitting a high end one badly is more likely to be negligent, but again that's not a guaranteed outcome, just an opinion.

[cmaguire]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem obsessed about what you think is your responsibility and what isn't. No one gives a fk, least of all your insurance company. They cover your legal liability, not what you do or don't feel responsible for.

It's you and Gavia that prompted my responses with your questions regarding those views. I have already said that I have no misconception that insurance companies base their decisions on either what is morally right or what I think they should do either.

[cmaguire]

Gavia said:

Morally right depends on your morals. How much damage are you willing to pay for personally? Would you cover next door's car if it was a £20000 write off if a tree fell over in your garden during a storm? Are your morals limited by cost of damage?

You're guessing on the bearing manufacturer, but fitting a low end product well, even if it fails is not negligent. Fitting a high end one badly is more likely to be negligent, but again that's not a guaranteed outcome, just an opinion.

That tree is back in 'Act of God' territory again, so not really relevant to the trailer wheel. This tree.....if it appeared healthy and I had no reason to believe it not to be then c'est la vie. If it was rotten in places and there were obvious signs that it required attention, yet I didn't attend to it and it subsequently fell over in a storm, then I would accept the blame.

Would you fit a cheap wheel bearing? It should be negligent. Much as fitting £25 Chinese tyres should be. Fitting them isn't, but thankfully most of those doing it don't drive many miles and most of those aren't very fast.

The whole bearing manufacturer/supplier negligence thing won't come to anything anyway, so this all boils down to what the insurance companies involved think about the practical aspect of the wheel falling off.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gavia said:

Morally right depends on your morals. How much damage are you willing to pay for personally? Would you cover next door's car if it was a £20000 write off if a tree fell over in your garden during a storm? Are your morals limited by cost of damage?

Of course they are. He talks a big game, but if his tree blew over in a storm onto next door's Bugatti, his household insurers would not pay due to lack of negligence, and despite his moral code, he'd not pay either.

Personally, I have no such moral code. My car is worth £20K If I want that protected, it's up to me to buy comp insurance and claim on that. If I don't, it's my fault. I wouldn't expect my neighbour to pay just because it was his tree that fell on my car. Assuming it was a well maintained tree blown over in a huge storm. He's done nothing wrong, why is it down to him?

A tree blew down. It wasn't anyone's fault. My property got damaged, it's my responsibility to sort it.

[Gavia]

cmaguire said:

That tree is back in 'Act of God' territory again, so not really relevant to the trailer wheel. This tree.....if it appeared healthy and I had no reason to believe it not to be then c'est la vie. If it was rotten in places and there were obvious signs that it required attention, yet I didn't attend to it and it subsequently fell over in a storm, then I would accept the blame.

Would you fit a cheap wheel bearing? It should be negligent. Much as fitting £25 Chinese tyres should be. Fitting them isn't, but thankfully most of those doing it don't drive many miles and most of those aren't very fast.

The whole bearing manufacturer/supplier negligence thing won't come to anything anyway, so this all boils down to what the insurance companies involved think about the practical aspect of the wheel falling off.

Act of a god is a myth, I gave an example of that earlier.

You're right about the condition of the tree though, one is potentially negligent, one isn't. Just because you see the bearings as sub-standard it doesn't mean that a layman would.

[cmaguire]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Of course they are. He talks a big game, but if his tree blew over in a storm onto next door's Bugatti, his household insurers would not pay due to lack of negligence, and despite his moral code, he'd not pay either.

Personally, I have no such moral code. My car is worth £20K If I want that protected, it's up to me to buy comp insurance and claim on that. If I don't, it's my fault. I wouldn't expect my neighbour to pay just because it was his tree that fell on my car. Assuming it was a well maintained tree blown over in a huge storm. He's done nothing wrong, why is it down to him?

A tree blew down. It wasn't anyone's fault. My property got damaged, it's my responsibility to sort it.

Why are you even talking about trees?
I accept some blame as he had me doing it too, but I didn't play a part in starting that dubious connection. A wheel falling off a trailer is hardly an 'Act of God'.

[heebeegeetee]

cmaguire said:

This tree.....if it appeared healthy and I had no reason to believe it not to be then c'est la vie.

Who says it appears healthy though? A layman? Surely that means nothing, but if a proper tree surgeon has been commissioned to check it then that's different.

If a fallen tree hasn't been professionally checked for too long a period of time, I think that's negligent.

Anyway, unless something untoward has happened, I think the chances of a new bearing failing are next to none, I think the chances of it being fitted incorrectly are really quite high. I think it's a huge mistake to assume the new bearing has failed.