Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!
Discussion
On the “insurance only covers negligence” side of things...
A car has a blow out, swerves and wipes out a car. Does the insurer of the car that had the blow out and swerved into another car not pay out for damage to the other car? And just imagine they don’t wipe out a car, they wipe out a motorcyclist and paralyse them, that motorcyclist is responsible for their own costs associated with the fact they’re now paralysed??? Genuinely asking, because in all my time on the road I thought insurers paid out on the basis of responsibility, not negligence, and they are very very different things!
A car has a blow out, swerves and wipes out a car. Does the insurer of the car that had the blow out and swerved into another car not pay out for damage to the other car? And just imagine they don’t wipe out a car, they wipe out a motorcyclist and paralyse them, that motorcyclist is responsible for their own costs associated with the fact they’re now paralysed??? Genuinely asking, because in all my time on the road I thought insurers paid out on the basis of responsibility, not negligence, and they are very very different things!
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. Surely in any accident in which you suspect a mobile phone was being used at the time of the accident you would want to ask the driver for their phone number, then ring it yourself to check that the number they give you is ringing in front of their very eyes. The law is pretty strict when it comes to not holding a phone whilst driving, and if someone was seen to be holding a phone at the time of the crash and its records show they were on a call at the time it will be hard for them to argue that yes they were on a call but the phone was mounted on the dashboard at all times. If they were holding a phone but weren't on a call at the time of the crash then what were they doing holding it in their hand when both hands should have been on the wheel?
StevenB said:
This not covered thing, Instead of hitting a car what would be the case if she hit a person and they ended up with a life changing injury. that could never be right ....
I imagine for personal injury the Motor Insurers' Bureauwould step in. They generally lean on the insurer to settle anyway.Chromegrill said:
Surely in any accident in which you suspect a mobile phone was being used at the time of the accident you would want to ask the driver for their phone number, then ring it yourself to check that the number they give you is ringing in front of their very eyes. The law is pretty strict when it comes to not holding a phone whilst driving, and if someone was seen to be holding a phone at the time of the crash and its records show they were on a call at the time it will be hard for them to argue that yes they were on a call but the phone was mounted on the dashboard at all times. If they were holding a phone but weren't on a call at the time of the crash then what were they doing holding it in their hand when both hands should have been on the wheel?
Holding a phone and driving is not an offence in itself. One does not hold onto a steering wheel with both hands when changing gears (assuming an old fashioned manual car), changing radio stations, putting windows down etc.
Sheepshanks said:
I imagine for personal injury the Motor Insurers' Bureau would step in. They generally lean on the insurer to settle anyway.
I disagree. The MIB's function is to act as insurers of last resort in cases involving uninsured and/or untraced drivers. There is currently no uk system for compensating victims of non-fault accidents.
NotBenny said:
On the “insurance only covers negligence” side of things...
A car has a blow out, swerves and wipes out a car. Does the insurer of the car that had the blow out and swerved into another car not pay out for damage to the other car? And just imagine they don’t wipe out a car, they wipe out a motorcyclist and paralyse them, that motorcyclist is responsible for their own costs associated with the fact they’re now paralysed??? Genuinely asking, because in all my time on the road I thought insurers paid out on the basis of responsibility, not negligence, and they are very very different things!
How would you prove that the reason for the blowout was the fault of the manufacturer and not the driver? The driver would need all sorts of proof to show they weren’t negligent. Evidence that they checked the pressure on the tyre regularly and frequently amd so on. In reality none of us do that and have tyres that are years old, have hit kerbs, or at the very least potholes amd been through thousands of miles of abuse. Extremely u likely you’d get away with it as Joe Public. A lorry on a well maintained and rigourously managed fleet though might be a different story. A car has a blow out, swerves and wipes out a car. Does the insurer of the car that had the blow out and swerved into another car not pay out for damage to the other car? And just imagine they don’t wipe out a car, they wipe out a motorcyclist and paralyse them, that motorcyclist is responsible for their own costs associated with the fact they’re now paralysed??? Genuinely asking, because in all my time on the road I thought insurers paid out on the basis of responsibility, not negligence, and they are very very different things!
Alpinestars said:
Chromegrill said:
Surely in any accident in which you suspect a mobile phone was being used at the time of the accident you would want to ask the driver for their phone number, then ring it yourself to check that the number they give you is ringing in front of their very eyes. The law is pretty strict when it comes to not holding a phone whilst driving, and if someone was seen to be holding a phone at the time of the crash and its records show they were on a call at the time it will be hard for them to argue that yes they were on a call but the phone was mounted on the dashboard at all times. If they were holding a phone but weren't on a call at the time of the crash then what were they doing holding it in their hand when both hands should have been on the wheel?
Holding a phone and driving is not an offence in itself. One does not hold onto a steering wheel with both hands when changing gears (assuming an old fashioned manual car), changing radio stations, putting windows down etc.
This whole sorry state of affairs is just the usual wriggling of the third party’s insurance company, and once the driver realises how much of a world of s
t she’s in then things could get very interesting. I hope she gets the book thrown at her for this, I see too many fools driving and holding their phones. shatners bassoon said:
Mandat said:
The alleged black out may be the first indication of a medical condition, therefore there may not have been any pre-existing conditions to inform DVLA or the insurer about.
Well in that rather unlikely case, her insurer would still be on the hook. It can't be the case that someone can write off another person's car, claim they blacked out for the first time, and the only person who suffers is the one who loses their car - who has to eat the cost of it all in the form of higher insurance premiums and a lost no-claims bonus.
His insurance paid out for the two cars he wrote off (his lovely Mondeo ST220 and an old dear's classic Mercedes).
He had a year where his licence was revoked on medical grounds, I understand not because of the strokes but rather the accompanying seizures. He didn't tell us about the blackout that caused the crash and had carried on driving until the day before his brain imploded.
I hope the lying cow gets her licence revoked and finds car, travel and medical insurance expensive from now on.
Huskyman said:
Holding a phone while driving is an offence. See here https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...
This whole sorry state of affairs is just the usual wriggling of the third party’s insurance company, and once the driver realises how much of a world of st she’s in then things could get very interesting. I hope she gets the book thrown at her for this, I see too many fools driving and holding their phones.
That has to be one of the most stupidly worded official websites I've ever seen. Title says one thing ("using a phone or a sat-nav when driving"), and very first line of content says quite another ("It's illegal to hold a phone or sat-nav while driving"). This whole sorry state of affairs is just the usual wriggling of the third party’s insurance company, and once the driver realises how much of a world of s
t she’s in then things could get very interesting. I hope she gets the book thrown at her for this, I see too many fools driving and holding their phones. The truth - if that phone or sat-nav happens to be switched off, and the physical act of holding it isn't impairing your control of the vehicle, it's no more illegal to hold it than it would be a packet of cigarettes, a hair-brush, a talisman of the Great Spaghetti Monster, etc, etc.
Makes my blood boil to see public servants of all people wilfully misusing the Queen's English
(or if we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt, sowing further confusion, at public expense no less, on a subject they're supposed to be providing helpful and useful information about!)Chromegrill said:
Surely in any accident in which you suspect a mobile phone was being used at the time of the accident you would want to ask the driver for their phone number
You can ask the other driver for their phone number but they are not required to provide it and if they decline to give it there's not a lot you can do about it. Cat
Leicester Loyal said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TIf she is telling the truth, she has had no previous health problems, or has but was taking all her medication, then she hasn't done anything wrong. So she isn;t responsible for the damage.
Possibly the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on here. I'm genuinely baffled as to why you consider Twig's comment (which is basically correct) to be `ridiculous'.
Pro Bono said:
Leicester Loyal said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TIf she is telling the truth, she has had no previous health problems, or has but was taking all her medication, then she hasn't done anything wrong. So she isn;t responsible for the damage.
Possibly the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on here. I'm genuinely baffled as to why you consider Twig's comment (which is basically correct) to be `ridiculous'.
I spent over 30 years in the General Insurance Claims industry, and at least 10 of them handling Motor Claims.
If someone has their 1st ever heart attack with no previous symptoms while driving and has a collision, that isn't negligence - and negligence is what Third Party insurance covers.
Slightly off-topic I'd pretty much ignore the reference to a "blow-out" - I saw many claims where people claimed to have one of those, but the battered wheel rims said otherwise! I only know of one instance where a defective tyre did result in a blow-out, which caused fatalities on the M1 back in the 70s - the insurer got a tyre expert to forensically examine the remains. IIRC it was a Dunlop remould, and there was more than one incident.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff