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

[shatners bassoon]

Hi everyone,

A relative of mine had their car written off a few days ago while it was parked outside his house.

It was hit in the rear by a young woman who two witnesses have said was on her phone at the time.

I've not got the full details yet, but her insurance company is reporting that she's claiming she blacked out (which was the cause of the accident) and consequently is not liable for the accident - meaning that he had to claim on his own insurance. They've also claimed that he knows both the witnesses (he doesn't) and their statements are thus inadmissible.

I don't know a great deal about insurance liability, but I've never heard of anything like this. Some people have tried using such a defence (blacking out) to avoid dangerous driving convictions, but surely her insurance company should still cover her?

Also, her insurance company have apparently conveyed all this by email, so it's recorded. If, as I suspect, they're talking bks, who should we report them to?

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

[shatners bassoon]

I'm wondering whether her parents are lawyers or something.

Surely such a weak excuse can't force my relative to use his insurance?

If her insurance is claiming she didn't inform them of this preexisting medical condition, could they claim her insurance was invalid and refuse to pay out? If so that wouldnt that see her in more trouble than just careless driving?

[shatners bassoon]

Apparently the rozzers suspected phone use and intended to check her call list

[shatners bassoon]

Apparently the rozzers suspected phone use and intended to check her call list

[shatners bassoon]

Yes police attended. She made quite a mess. Road was shut for a while.

She was in back of police car for quite a while

[shatners bassoon]

Du1point8 said:

not understanding the 'she blacked out we aint paying' stance.

Yep, that's what perplexed me the most too.

Because otherwise anyone could use that defence to weasel out of culpability for any crash they cause

[shatners bassoon]

Mandat said:

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.

But isn't that then suggesting she failed to inform them of a pre-existing medical condition, in which case her insurance was not valid and she's guilty of causing an accident while driving an uninsured vehicle?

Because any other way you slice it, it just seems like an all-too-convenient excuse for anyone who causes a crash.

[shatners bassoon]

I've suggested for now that he get his insurers and her insurers to deliver their take on things in writing.


I think she's using the blackout story as a crude attempt to avoid a DWDCA conviction.

[shatners bassoon]

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.

[shatners bassoon]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If 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.

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

[shatners bassoon]

Pro Bono said:

You're wrong. The driver is only legally liable if they were negligent. If they blacked out and had no reason to suspect they might do so it's the equivalent of an Act of God. They are not to blame, they were not negligent, they are not liable to pay compensation and their insurers consequently have no liability to fulfil.

Insurers are there to indemnify you, the insured against having to pay damages. They aren't there to provide a fund for the world at large to dip into. If you aren't liable then neither are they.

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

[shatners bassoon]

vonhosen said:

That's what fully comp is about. Covering for losses that somebody else isn't liable for.

That's if we're making the assumption that somebody else isn't in fact liable in this case.

It still seems absurd - the idea that you have to cover yourself against not just uninsured drivers, but also those who might try to use an asymptomatic and singular medical episode to avoid culpability for destroying your vehicle.

[shatners bassoon]

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.

[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.