Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!
Discussion
If she's blacked out whilst driving and crashed into someone writing their car off....... What the f
k is she doing sitting in the back of a police car whilst the mess is cleared up / statements taken etc. What did she say to the police when asked, in the back of the police car, how did it happen? If she's answered, I blacked out, surely her next port of call is A&E in the back of an ambulance?????
I'd be interested to see what the police wrote down in the back of the police car? And if they won't say, i'd press charges of DWDCA and see what came out of it.
If the OP is genuine in the witness's impartiality and the comment of ' I felt a bit faint... shouldn't have driven' then I think OP's got her to rights as that is negligence...
k is she doing sitting in the back of a police car whilst the mess is cleared up / statements taken etc. What did she say to the police when asked, in the back of the police car, how did it happen? If she's answered, I blacked out, surely her next port of call is A&E in the back of an ambulance?????I'd be interested to see what the police wrote down in the back of the police car? And if they won't say, i'd press charges of DWDCA and see what came out of it.
If the OP is genuine in the witness's impartiality and the comment of ' I felt a bit faint... shouldn't have driven' then I think OP's got her to rights as that is negligence...
Ok.... Whatever...... I'm not a solicitor or legal expert..... i'd be doing whatever I could to find out what was said!
Neverless.....if she's blacked out and told the coppers she should be in ambulance not the back of a police car.... so if she's not been sent to A&E then she more than likely never blacked out and she's either lying to police or her insurers!
Neverless.....if she's blacked out and told the coppers she should be in ambulance not the back of a police car.... so if she's not been sent to A&E then she more than likely never blacked out and she's either lying to police or her insurers!
super7 said:
Ok.... Whatever...... I'm not a solicitor or legal expert.....
I'd kind of guessed that 
super7 said:
Neverless.....if she's blacked out and told the coppers she should be in ambulance not the back of a police car.... so if she's not been sent to A&E then she more than likely never blacked out and she's either lying to police or her insurers!
She might even be lying to both. Mandat said:
I'm sure that the insurance experts will be along to explain better, but as I understand it, your insurance covers you for any negligence on your part.
If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Where have you gained this information from.....................If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Personally I cant believe that would be the case, hypothetical, but say the driver had hit pedestrians walking on the pavement, they ended up with life changing injuries and not able to work again.
Are you saying the injured person would have no claim on the driver and as such could potential lose everything due to no fault of there own. Unlikely anyone has there own insurance to cover this.
Surely insurance covers any medical conditions when driving (if unknown or previously disclosed) , I mean they pay out when someone has crashed through drink and driving so would be harsh if there is such a clause on a medical issue.
tighnamara said:
Mandat said:
I'm sure that the insurance experts will be along to explain better, but as I understand it, your insurance covers you for any negligence on your part.
If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Where have you gained this information from.....................If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Personally I cant believe that would be the case, hypothetical, but say the driver had hit pedestrians walking on the pavement, they ended up with life changing injuries and not able to work again.
Are you saying the injured person would have no claim on the driver and as such could potential lose everything due to no fault of there own. Unlikely anyone has there own insurance to cover this.
Surely insurance covers any medical conditions when driving (if unknown or previously disclosed) , I mean they pay out when someone has crashed through drink and driving so would be harsh if there is such a clause on a medical issue.
vonhosen said:
tighnamara said:
Mandat said:
I'm sure that the insurance experts will be along to explain better, but as I understand it, your insurance covers you for any negligence on your part.
If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Where have you gained this information from.....................If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Personally I cant believe that would be the case, hypothetical, but say the driver had hit pedestrians walking on the pavement, they ended up with life changing injuries and not able to work again.
Are you saying the injured person would have no claim on the driver and as such could potential lose everything due to no fault of there own. Unlikely anyone has there own insurance to cover this.
Surely insurance covers any medical conditions when driving (if unknown or previously disclosed) , I mean they pay out when someone has crashed through drink and driving so would be harsh if there is such a clause on a medical issue.
I was replying to the person above who was stating that insurance wouldn't pay out if accident was due to a medical condition and OP would have to claim off his insurance.
I know it was a car she hit, I was being hypothetical in that if she had hit a pedestrian surely the pedestrian could claim of her insurance so surely insurance covers a medical issue.
tighnamara said:
vonhosen said:
tighnamara said:
Mandat said:
I'm sure that the insurance experts will be along to explain better, but as I understand it, your insurance covers you for any negligence on your part.
If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Where have you gained this information from.....................If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Personally I cant believe that would be the case, hypothetical, but say the driver had hit pedestrians walking on the pavement, they ended up with life changing injuries and not able to work again.
Are you saying the injured person would have no claim on the driver and as such could potential lose everything due to no fault of there own. Unlikely anyone has there own insurance to cover this.
Surely insurance covers any medical conditions when driving (if unknown or previously disclosed) , I mean they pay out when someone has crashed through drink and driving so would be harsh if there is such a clause on a medical issue.
I was replying to the person above who was stating that insurance wouldn't pay out if accident was due to a medical condition and OP would have to claim off his insurance.
I know it was a car she hit, I was being hypothetical in that if she had hit a pedestrian surely the pedestrian could claim of her insurance so surely insurance covers a medical issue.
If you are genuinely not negligent, then you are not legally liable. You insurance only covers your legal liability.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
tighnamara said:
vonhosen said:
tighnamara said:
Mandat said:
I'm sure that the insurance experts will be along to explain better, but as I understand it, your insurance covers you for any negligence on your part.
If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Where have you gained this information from.....................If she genuinely blacked out, the insurer would argue that the accident was caused by a medical condition and not negligence, hence not paying out.
Personally I cant believe that would be the case, hypothetical, but say the driver had hit pedestrians walking on the pavement, they ended up with life changing injuries and not able to work again.
Are you saying the injured person would have no claim on the driver and as such could potential lose everything due to no fault of there own. Unlikely anyone has there own insurance to cover this.
Surely insurance covers any medical conditions when driving (if unknown or previously disclosed) , I mean they pay out when someone has crashed through drink and driving so would be harsh if there is such a clause on a medical issue.
I was replying to the person above who was stating that insurance wouldn't pay out if accident was due to a medical condition and OP would have to claim off his insurance.
I know it was a car she hit, I was being hypothetical in that if she had hit a pedestrian surely the pedestrian could claim of her insurance so surely insurance covers a medical issue.
If you are genuinely not negligent, then you are not legally liable. You insurance only covers your legal liability.
Other than PH posts, where has this not being liable been shown as being correct ?
My point is that it if she had (hypothetical again) hit something that had no insurance to claim against such as a person, that they would have no means of a claim due to it being medical and not negligence.
It was veering from the actual post but was interested and a bit shocked that someone could be injured in such an incident and not have any means of claiming against the driver.
fushion julz said:
If insurance only covers negligence, perhaps saying you deliberately crashed into the other car would achieve the same result...No negligence and no medical issues that caused the crash...
Crashing into someone deliberately is negligent. Something doesn't have to be accidental to be negligent.
tighnamara said:
My point is that it if she had (hypothetical again) hit something that had no insurance to claim against such as a person, that they would have no means of a claim due to it being medical and not negligence.
It was veering from the actual post but was interested and a bit shocked that someone could be injured in such an incident and not have any means of claiming against the driver.
You say that you've read the thread, then you would have seen Twig's comments on the previous page.It was veering from the actual post but was interested and a bit shocked that someone could be injured in such an incident and not have any means of claiming against the driver.
twig said:
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 said:
fushion julz said:
If insurance only covers negligence, perhaps saying you deliberately crashed into the other car would achieve the same result...No negligence and no medical issues that caused the crash...
Crashing into someone deliberately is negligent. Something doesn't have to be accidental to be negligent.
tighnamara said:
For one more time, I have read the thread.
Other than PH posts, where has this not being liable been shown as being correct ?
My point is that it if she had (hypothetical again) hit something that had no insurance to claim against such as a person, that they would have no means of a claim due to it being medical and not negligence.
It was veering from the actual post but was interested and a bit shocked that someone could be injured in such an incident and not have any means of claiming against the driver.
Someone linked the legal position earlierOther than PH posts, where has this not being liable been shown as being correct ?
My point is that it if she had (hypothetical again) hit something that had no insurance to claim against such as a person, that they would have no means of a claim due to it being medical and not negligence.
It was veering from the actual post but was interested and a bit shocked that someone could be injured in such an incident and not have any means of claiming against the driver.
https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/hm-insights/2017/m...
Alpinestars said:
Huskyman said:
Holding a phone while driving is an offence. See here https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-drivin...
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/...
Fundamentally, there is no reason for someone to be holding a phone if they are not also using it in some way, either looking at the screen, pressing buttons, or selecting button representations.
gavgavgav said:
Is sneezing treated in the same way?
Have you sneezed before? Are you likely to sneeze? Did you blow your nose before driving? 
Surely it's a no fault claim and the OP let's their own insurance deal with it. Whether she's blacked out, posting to Facebook determines whether OPs insurance gets anything back from her insurance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff