Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!
Discussion
AnotherGareth said:
Perhaps I read it differently to you.
In the linked page it says "A phone or device will be in use where it is making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function whether with another person or not." and I take that to mean if a person looks at the phone or phone display and presses a button or selects the visual representation of a button than, at that point, interactive communication has taken place. Specifically, the person has interacted with (communicated with) the phone.
It goes on to say "The particular use to which the mobile phone must be put is not defined as an element of the offence. The prosecution must merely prove that the phone or the other device was hand-held by the person at some point during its use at a time when the person was driving a vehicle on a road." which suggests to me that the commonly understood definition is how the law is interpreted.
It needs to be used. Not just held. I can’t emphasise that enough. The particular use - still means use. Ie, they don’t need to prove that use was eg, an email, text, call etc etc. Just using it is enough. It even goes on to say it must be used whilst hand-held. The word “use” would be superfluous if you took your view. In the linked page it says "A phone or device will be in use where it is making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function whether with another person or not." and I take that to mean if a person looks at the phone or phone display and presses a button or selects the visual representation of a button than, at that point, interactive communication has taken place. Specifically, the person has interacted with (communicated with) the phone.
It goes on to say "The particular use to which the mobile phone must be put is not defined as an element of the offence. The prosecution must merely prove that the phone or the other device was hand-held by the person at some point during its use at a time when the person was driving a vehicle on a road." which suggests to me that the commonly understood definition is how the law is interpreted.
A point in the OP that I don't think anyone touched on - the crashing lady claimed the witnesses were not viable because they were known by the victim.
While I can understand the argument (people asking their mates to help get away with something), surely witnesses still have some sway? The accident in the OP occurred outside his house, so witnesses are likely to be neighbours and know the victim for example. You can't just assault someone in front of their friend and then declare their friend can't be a witness because they know the victim (or can you?).
While I can understand the argument (people asking their mates to help get away with something), surely witnesses still have some sway? The accident in the OP occurred outside his house, so witnesses are likely to be neighbours and know the victim for example. You can't just assault someone in front of their friend and then declare their friend can't be a witness because they know the victim (or can you?).
uknick said:
But it could happen. Wouldn't she be liable as she knowingly drove under those conditions?
No. No one can predict that they will black out at X time. Out of her control. If you were driving and had a stroke out the blue would you be happy to be liable for it? Shes human, no human body is 100% reliable
, won't EazyDuz said:
No. No one can predict that they will black out at X time. Out of her control. If you were driving and had a stroke out the blue would you be happy to be liable for it?
Shes human, no human body is 100% reliable
She knowingly does something that could result in a blackout, so she must bear some liability. From what I've read on this thread, and others, posted by those that are involved in the legal side of insurance this is the important bit. If you do something that could cause an accident then you're negligent and liable. Shes human, no human body is 100% reliable
It's not even comparable to someone who has a stroke out of the blue without any prior warning.
mac96 said:
It's a lost cause. I draft the things and I have never seen an 'Act of God' exclusion. Someone will be along shortly to suggest i am either lying or forgetful.
Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
I like a challenge! This is some policy wording used by AIG, one of the biggest insurers in the world:Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
Page 3, clause C 1 (b)
https://www.aig.sg/content/dam/aig/apac/singapore/...
Yes, Ok, I spotted that as well, but you didn't specify ...
Bobskirs6 said:
It's their fault end of story, regardless of blacking out claim or not.
It's not, it's an Act of God. (I know they're scared to use the terminology in the documents [though not in the legal procedures that underpin the documents] in case a big fist appears out of the sky and punches them, but that's what it is....an Act of God). 
selmahoose said:
Bobskirs6 said:
It's their fault end of story, regardless of blacking out claim or not.
It's not, it's an Act of God. (I know they're scared to use the terminology in the documents [though not in the legal procedures that underpin the documents] in case a big fist appears out of the sky and punches them, but that's what it is....an Act of God). Pro Bono said:
mac96 said:
It's a lost cause. I draft the things and I have never seen an 'Act of God' exclusion. Someone will be along shortly to suggest i am either lying or forgetful.
Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
I like a challenge! This is some policy wording used by AIG, one of the biggest insurers in the world:Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
Page 3, clause C 1 (b)
https://www.aig.sg/content/dam/aig/apac/singapore/...
Yes, Ok, I spotted that as well, but you didn't specify ...
CanAm said:
Pro Bono said:
mac96 said:
It's a lost cause. I draft the things and I have never seen an 'Act of God' exclusion. Someone will be along shortly to suggest i am either lying or forgetful.
Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
I like a challenge! This is some policy wording used by AIG, one of the biggest insurers in the world:Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
Page 3, clause C 1 (b)
https://www.aig.sg/content/dam/aig/apac/singapore/...
Yes, Ok, I spotted that as well, but you didn't specify ...
macushla said:
CanAm said:
Pro Bono said:
mac96 said:
It's a lost cause. I draft the things and I have never seen an 'Act of God' exclusion. Someone will be along shortly to suggest i am either lying or forgetful.
Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
I like a challenge! This is some policy wording used by AIG, one of the biggest insurers in the world:Happy to be proven wrong though, by an actual policy wording, with an exclusion using the words 'Act of God'.
Page 3, clause C 1 (b)
https://www.aig.sg/content/dam/aig/apac/singapore/...
Yes, Ok, I spotted that as well, but you didn't specify ...
selmahoose said:
But it does contain the all important phrase
What’s the point in quoting a policy from a completely different legal framework? That country may have an Act of God allowance, they may not have legal liability, they may have all sorts of things that are different to this country. macushla said:
What’s the point in quoting a policy from a completely different legal framework? That country may have an Act of God allowance, they may not have legal liability, they may have all sorts of things that are different to this country.
And considering that Christianity is very much a minority religion in Singapore, how do the other deities feel about this favouring of one of their competitors?Mark-C said:
This is an interesting thread and I've learnt some stuff about insurance and negligence.
However it's bloody hard work trawling through the comments of people that haven't read the thread and feel obliged to comment anyway.
OP - keep us informed as to what happens
"This"However it's bloody hard work trawling through the comments of people that haven't read the thread and feel obliged to comment anyway.
OP - keep us informed as to what happens
If OP is reading at least 2 of us on here would like to know how this pans out, while other arguments continue
FWIW my prediction is that the young lady will admit (or get nabbed for) DWDCA and/or phone use rather than try and stick it out with the "blackout" scenario when she realises how that could evolve
Good username too OP!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff