Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

[V8C]

shatners bassoon said:

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.

I would take that as an admission that she is negligent. You wouldn't get behind the wheel feeling a bit light headed after a shandy or two. You also wouldn't if you'd taken a couple of co-codamol and were a bit away with the fairies, the same principle follows. She admitted she did not feel safe to drive BEFORE she made the choice to get behind the wheel. Therefore she is negligent.

[roadsmash]

Do we know that this is her first blackout?

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

She may have been on her phone reading comments on facebook, and lapsed into a coma (often how i feel after reading fb)

Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Friday 18th January 22:56

[Aretnap]

shatners bassoon said:

So if someone writes off your car because they black out from an undiagnosed condition, it's YOUR responsibility to eat the cost of that?

that doesn't seem in any way fair or rational

Why not? Seriously. There are a hundred different things which could happen to your car which wouldn't be your fault but you'd still have to eat the costs or claim on your own insurance. If a storm blows a tree over onto your car that's not your fault, but the costs are still your problem. Or if you park near a river and the river floods and destroys your car that's not your fault, but you still end up with the costs. Or if your car is damaged by wild animals... you get the idea. You presumably don't expect someone else to pay for every bit of misfortune that befalls you in life - so why is is it so outrageous that there isn't someone else to pay for this particular misfortune?

Granted her car drove into yours, but what that argument misses is that assuming for a moment that she's telling the truth and she did have an unexpected blackout with no warning, it's not your fault, but it wouldn't be her fault either. What do you think she could realistically have done differently which would have avoided the accident? Why should she get the bill for something which she had no control over?

shatners bassoon said:

Then everyone who causes an accident would use that defence, and the whole concept of blame or 3rd party liability would be destroyed.

And yet not everyone who has an accident does use that defence, and the whole concept of third party liability has not been destroyed.

Two reasons why. First, as several people have alluded to, it would be a silly and pointless lie to tell. I'd much rather have an insurance claim to my name than have the DVLA revoke my licence on medical grounds, so "I blacked out at the wheel" isn't something I'd go around telling people if it wasn't true. In fact, assuming she's going to claim for the damage to her car on her own policy then she's going to lose her NCB regardless of whether her insurer pays out for the other cars or not, so the claim gains her precisely diddly squat, and potentially loses her her licence. Not a good trade, IMO.

And secondly, as Pro Bono suggests, proving automotism is likely to require more evidence that her saying "erm, I blacked out, honest guv". Her insurers denying liability and raising the defence is an opening position - it doesn't follow that if push comes to shove they will stick to that position, or that ultimately a court would side with them. So your relative may well end up getting paid by them - the claim just complicates the process a bit; it doesn't automatically defeat it.

[shatners bassoon]

Aretnap said:

If a storm blows a tree over onto your car that's not your fault, but the costs are still your problem. Or if you park near a river and the river floods and destroys your car that's not your fault, but you still end up with the costs. Or if your car is damaged by wild animals... you get the idea.

Storms, floods and stampedes of wild beasts are somewhat harder to fabricate than ultra-convenient momentary blackouts.

[Roger Irrelevant]

Aretnap said:

There are a hundred different things which could happen to your car which wouldn't be your fault but you'd still have to eat the costs or claim on your own insurance. If a storm blows a tree over onto your car that's not your fault, but the costs are still your problem. Or if you park near a river and the river floods and destroys your car that's not your fault, but you still end up with the costs. Or if your car is damaged by wild animals... you get the idea. You presumably don't expect someone else to pay for every bit of misfortune that befalls you in life - so why is is it so outrageous that there isn't someone else to pay for this particular misfortune?

This is the thing that gets lost on this type of thread IMO - that sometimes genuine act-of-god type accidents do happen. Nobody would reasonably expect somebody else to pick up the tab in the instances you describe because nobody else is at fault, and by 'at fault' I mean negligent. But if the accident happens to involve another driver who has third-party insurance people get a bit confused and think there is no longer the need for the third party to have been negligent in order to be liable. I had to laugh at TwigTWK's perfectly accurate post explaining this apparently being the most ridiculous thing ever posted on PH!

In this case though I'm sure the blackout story is a fabrication, that whether or not the witnesses were known to the claimant is essentially irrelevant, that the young lady was negligent and that her insurance will pay out eventually.

[Alpinestars]

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 misrepresents the law. You need to be USING the phone. Not just HOLDING the phone.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/pdfs/...

[Derek Smith]

Roger Irrelevant said:

This is the thing that gets lost on this type of thread IMO - that sometimes genuine act-of-god type accidents do happen. Nobody would reasonably expect somebody else to pick up the tab in the instances you describe because nobody else is at fault, and by 'at fault' I mean negligent. But if the accident happens to involve another driver who has third-party insurance people get a bit confused and think there is no longer the need for the third party to have been negligent in order to be liable. I had to laugh at TwigTWK's perfectly accurate post explaining this apparently being the most ridiculous thing ever posted on PH!

In this case though I'm sure the blackout story is a fabrication, that whether or not the witnesses were known to the claimant is essentially irrelevant, that the young lady was negligent and that her insurance will pay out eventually.

The only example of automatism I've known when in the Job was where a child behind the driver projectile vomited over the driver and the dashboard. She lifted her hands from the wheel and drove into a parked car. There was a case locally, 10 or so years ago, where a chap I knew blacked out, drove into some electrical device, and, ironically, blacked out half his village. So such things do happen. But rarely.

I've often wondered if more people do 'black out', even if only momentarily, and don't say so for fear of losing their licence.

If this woman had suffered such attacks before, or felt that she should not have driven, then the defence of automatism can be challenged. If the OP has full comp then it might be easier to just run with it.

[Graveworm]

Roger Irrelevant said:

This is the thing that gets lost on this type of thread IMO - that sometimes genuine act-of-god type accidents do happen. Nobody would reasonably expect somebody else to pick up the tab in the instances you describe because nobody else is at fault, and by 'at fault' I mean negligent. But if the accident happens to involve another driver who has third-party insurance people get a bit confused and think there is no longer the need for the third party to have been negligent in order to be liable. I had to laugh at TwigTWK's perfectly accurate post explaining this apparently being the most ridiculous thing ever posted on PH!

In this case though I'm sure the blackout story is a fabrication, that whether or not the witnesses were known to the claimant is essentially irrelevant, that the young lady was negligent and that her insurance will pay out eventually.

There are High Court cases ongoing about just this issue which are going back and forth. In other countries there is no fault liability for drivers but not here.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

selmahoose said:

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.

Absolutely correct. We are all at risk of suffering life changing injuries at any moment. You could be struck by lightning, or trip over a stay cat. Or hit by someone who has had a blackout at the wheel when they have never had a medical issue before. Things happen sometimes where no one has done anything wrong, and no one can be held negligent. If you're worried about than, you need to take out your own personal accident insurance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

Have you actually read any of the other comments? Do you even understand the concept of negligence?

I'm genuinely baffled as to why you consider Twig's comment (which is basically correct) to be `ridiculous'.

Because he has pre conceived ideas about what he thinks is right, and like many people, does not want his beliefs challenged by facts.

[BertBert]

Back to the tyre example, it's fairly common to get punctures. If you crash because of one, then in the normal run of events the driver isn't negligent - clearly. Are we saying in all those cases the driver and the insurance company has no liability to any third parties with losses as a result of the puncture?

ETA as I'm intrigued by the topic, what are the applicable laws on your legal responsibility to third parties and negligence? I assume it's a huge area of law, but I'm just curious. I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would have no idea about this at all.

Bert

Edited by BertBert on Friday 18th January 10:02

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

Back to the tyre example, it's fairly common to get punctures. If you crash because of one, then in the normal run of events the driver isn't negligent - clearly. Are we saying in all those cases the driver and the insurance company has no liability to any third parties with losses as a result of the puncture?

Bert

Lots of people get punctures, but most of them manage to control the car. If someone fails to, then maybe they were negligent, because they failed to do what most people do many times a day.

A friend of mine had his car badly damaged by a tyre blowing out on a lorry, and the tyre hitting his car at speed. The lorry pulled over and so did my friend, and took his details. The lorry insurers wouldn't pay....clearly no negligence. The driver has no control over where the bits of tyre end up! If my friend had been a motorcyclist and ended up paralysed as a result...he still would have no claim on the lorry or its insurers!

Negligence is key to any claim against someone else.

[macushla]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Lots of people get punctures, but most of them manage to control the car. If someone fails to, then maybe they were negligent, because they failed to do what most people do many times a day.

A friend of mine had his car badly damaged by a tyre blowing out on a lorry, and the tyre hitting his car at speed. The lorry pulled over and so did my friend, and took his details. The lorry insurers wouldn't pay....clearly no negligence. The driver has no control over where the bits of tyre end up! If my friend had been a motorcyclist and ended up paralysed as a result...he still would have no claim on the lorry or its insurers!

Negligence is key to any claim against someone else.

Is that true about the lorry scenario? I’d have thought the lack of negligence is because a well maintained lorry will have documented evidence of the safety checks completed on the vehicle including the tyre checks, whereas a car driver won’t be able to provide that evidence, as few if any of us do those checks and are therefore negligent in our safety routine.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

macushla said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Lots of people get punctures, but most of them manage to control the car. If someone fails to, then maybe they were negligent, because they failed to do what most people do many times a day.

A friend of mine had his car badly damaged by a tyre blowing out on a lorry, and the tyre hitting his car at speed. The lorry pulled over and so did my friend, and took his details. The lorry insurers wouldn't pay....clearly no negligence. The driver has no control over where the bits of tyre end up! If my friend had been a motorcyclist and ended up paralysed as a result...he still would have no claim on the lorry or its insurers!

Negligence is key to any claim against someone else.

Is that true about the lorry scenario? I’d have thought the lack of negligence is because a well maintained lorry will have documented evidence of the safety checks completed on the vehicle including the tyre checks, whereas a car driver won’t be able to provide that evidence, as few if any of us do those checks and are therefore negligent in our safety routine.

You can get a blow out on a well maintained vehicle with good tyres. Much of the time it's just bad luck. But losing control following a blow out is usually negligent. Because most people don't.

[macushla]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You can get a blow out on a well maintained vehicle with good tyres. Much of the time it's just bad luck. But losing control following a blow out is usually negligent. Because most people don't.

Bad luck isn’t negligent though. Your view is that a tyre blowing out on a lorry isn’t negligent as the driver has no control over where the carcass ends up. What if my wing mirror falls off and causes an accident? Is that just bad luck, or could / should I have evidence to show it was maintained?

[Drumroll]

Aretnap said:

Two reasons why. First, as several people have alluded to, it would be a silly and pointless lie to tell. I'd much rather have an insurance claim to my name than have the DVLA revoke my licence on medical grounds, so "I blacked out at the wheel" isn't something I'd go around telling people if it wasn't true. In fact, assuming she's going to claim for the damage to her car on her own policy then she's going to lose her NCB regardless of whether her insurer pays out for the other cars or not, so the claim gains her precisely diddly squat, and potentially loses her her licence. Not a good trade, IMO.

You are assuming that from a rational point of view. People often tell "silly lies" in the heat of the moment. I could quite easily see someone thinking in the heat of the moment it would be better to say I blacked out than admit I was on the phone. With the possibility of losing my licence for something I know is against the law as opposed to something I may not even have considered could mean my licence is going to be revoked. (and because I don't know that I clearly wouldn't know how difficult it can be to get it back)

[vonhosen]

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.

Using, not just holding is an offence.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

macushla said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You can get a blow out on a well maintained vehicle with good tyres. Much of the time it's just bad luck. But losing control following a blow out is usually negligent. Because most people don't.

Bad luck isn’t negligent though. Your view is that a tyre blowing out on a lorry isn’t negligent as the driver has no control over where the carcass ends up. What if my wing mirror falls off and causes an accident? Is that just bad luck, or could / should I have evidence to show it was maintained?

A wing mirror falling off may be negligent, it may not be. If you fitted it yourself a week earlier, probably negligent. We can discuss these cases ad infinitum. Bottom line is, you cannot claim anything off anyone unless they were negligent (with a couple of rare exceptions specifically mentioned in law, that aren't relevant to motor insurance).

Going back to the OP, if the tp genuinely blacked out, with no previous warnings that this could happen, having done nothing wring, then they aren't negligent.

[vonhosen]

The old maxim 'Each case rests on it's own facts' applies, so it depends.