Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!
Discussion
uknick said:
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.
It's not even comparable to someone who has a stroke out of the blue without any prior warning.
Lol we dont know if she was fasting, thats something I said could be the cause of the blackout. In reality it could be due to an undiagnosed problem. Truth is all she needs to say is, 'I blacked out, I dont know why because I have no illnesses or conditions'. Which boils down to no one is at fault, its just one of those thingsIt's not even comparable to someone who has a stroke out of the blue without any prior warning.
daveinhampshire said:
There would be liability in the county court. You damage someone else's property and you are expected to put that damage right. I'm not quite sure how insurance companies are able to circumvent this and dump liability onto innocent motorists.
Great ... another legal expert ... please read the whole thread and let us know what you know that the insurance industry doesn't know.Thanks
daveinhampshire said:
There would be liability in the county court. You damage someone else's property and you are expected to put that damage right. I'm not quite sure how insurance companies are able to circumvent this and dump liability onto innocent motorists.
Errrrrr, there wouldn’t. Do you really think a case like this has never been run through the courts? EazyDuz said:
Lol we dont know if she was fasting, thats something I said could be the cause of the blackout. In reality it could be due to an undiagnosed problem. Truth is all she needs to say is, 'I blacked out, I dont know why because I have no illnesses or conditions'. Which boils down to no one is at fault, its just one of those things
I assume DVLA will decide random and unpredictable loss of consciousness is not conducive to driving until a reason is found.All I can see from reading the entire thread is an insurance company is dumping their responsibility based on a self signed sick note from their client. Apart from that many barrack room lawyers wading in with their judgements(me included) followed by queeny strops from those complaining we haven't read 5 pages of debate over holding a phone or being in possession of a phone.
daveinhampshire said:
All I can see from reading the entire thread is an insurance company is dumping their responsibility based on a self signed sick note from their client. Apart from that many barrack room lawyers wading in with their judgements(me included) followed by queeny strops from those complaining we haven't read 5 pages of debate over holding a phone or being in possession of a phone.
No, you’ve jumped to a conclusion based on what the OP (who’s conveniently not around any more) has said. The girl is claiming it and the insurer has passed that info along, much like you’d expect your insurer to defend you in a claim. However, her insurer will decide down the line whether this is a viable defence or not. Most on here don’t think it is and time will show this, but in the short term we’ve had lots of outrage, guesswork, hearsay and tangential arguments. daveinhampshire said:
All I can see from reading the entire thread is an insurance company is dumping their responsibility based on a self signed sick note from their client. Apart from that many barrack room lawyers wading in with their judgements(me included) followed by queeny strops from those complaining we haven't read 5 pages of debate over holding a phone or being in possession of a phone.
If that's all you can see, you are pretty blinkered. Why don't you actually read the thread, and you might actually learn something about basic law of tort, liability, negligence, etc. eldar said:
I assume DVLA will decide random and unpredictable loss of consciousness is not conducive to driving until a reason is found.
There is a term for it, 'transient loss of consciousness', which has no reason to happen and may never happen again. DVLA cant do anything about it. That's like claiming someone has the plague because they coughed once in their life. EazyDuz said:
There is a term for it, 'transient loss of consciousness', which has no reason to happen and may never happen again. DVLA cant do anything about it. That's like claiming someone has the plague because they coughed once in their life.
Transient loss of consciousness is indeed a term. Its a posh way of saying blackout which has been in the conversation since the first post. It is a symptom that can be caused by many things. It always has a reason to happen and may well happen again depending on what that reason is.NikBartlett said:
If a phone is off and you have it clamped to your ear whilts driving can the Police still do you for this under the mobile laws ? Or will they be so incensed they'll try and stick a without due care charge on you instead ?
Only a prize turnip would hold a dormant phone to their ear.
Graveworm said:
Transient loss of consciousness is indeed a term. Its a posh way of saying blackout which has been in the conversation since the first post. It is a symptom that can be caused by many things. It always has a reason to happen and may well happen again depending on what that reason is.
Indeed. Comprehensive guide here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63822/
EazyDuz said:
eldar said:
I assume DVLA will decide random and unpredictable loss of consciousness is not conducive to driving until a reason is found.
There is a term for it, 'transient loss of consciousness', which has no reason to happen and may never happen again. DVLA cant do anything about it. That's like claiming someone has the plague because they coughed once in their life. EazyDuz said:
uknick said:
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.
It's not even comparable to someone who has a stroke out of the blue without any prior warning.
Lol we dont know if she was fasting, thats something I said could be the cause of the blackout. In reality it could be due to an undiagnosed problem. Truth is all she needs to say is, 'I blacked out, I dont know why because I have no illnesses or conditions'. Which boils down to no one is at fault, its just one of those thingsIt's not even comparable to someone who has a stroke out of the blue without any prior warning.
shatners bassoon said:
Pothole said:
Unless she said to plod at the time that she blacked out, their evidence should work against that claim.
Allegedly she was repeating something to the effect of "...I shouldn't have driven, I was feeling faint before I left..." which was (again, allegedly) understood by the witnesses to be part of the subterfuge. Apologies for not having read the whole the whole thread, but from a medical point of view if this person has made a statement that she has had an unexplained loss of consciousness then she must by law notify the DVLA and her licence will be automatically suspended whilst she has a full medical investigation.
This would most likely be for at least six months, but would depend entirely on the findings of the medical tests and investigation and what the diagnosis arrived at to explain the loss of consciousness.
It would be a very stupid statement to make if not true as the implications go well beyond those of a driving licence and may potentially affect employment opportunity and insurance for the rest of their life.
This would most likely be for at least six months, but would depend entirely on the findings of the medical tests and investigation and what the diagnosis arrived at to explain the loss of consciousness.
It would be a very stupid statement to make if not true as the implications go well beyond those of a driving licence and may potentially affect employment opportunity and insurance for the rest of their life.
Graveworm said:
Transient loss of consciousness is indeed a term. Its a posh way of saying blackout which has been in the conversation since the first post. It is a symptom that can be caused by many things. It always has a reason to happen and may well happen again depending on what that reason is.
Not always a reason, thats incorrect. Just like spontaneous death. One can blackout with zero inherited conditions or lifestyle causes which would cause it. You cant hold her responsible for something that was out of her control. She didnt plan to blackout, she likely didnt starve herself to black out, and unless she has some kind of condition recorded on her NHS file which proves she is prone to blackouts, the blame is not on her. eldar said:
Graveworm said:
Transient loss of consciousness is indeed a term. Its a posh way of saying blackout which has been in the conversation since the first post. It is a symptom that can be caused by many things. It always has a reason to happen and may well happen again depending on what that reason is.
Indeed. Comprehensive guide here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63822/
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff