Who is liable for this crash

uktyler

pvt wrote: »

but that in no way negates the other driver's (or his insurer's) liability if he had caused the accident.

pvt

You're right, however without an insurance company to fight for the OP's daughter it is going to be difficult to prove, which is why many on this thread advised the OP's daughter to settle, as this would have prevented the involvement of the police.

As it is the OP's daughter will have a hard time proving the other driver was responsible, especially as the sums involved are minor and the circumstances are unclear, meaning the no win no fee people won't be interested, in case they lose.

briona

I really don’t get why there is so much support for the OP’s daughter! She was NOT insured! She’s committed a criminal offence, and all because the stupid girl was more concerned with buying clothes than with paying her insurance? What if the other driver had been uninsured? Would you all be quite so supportive then?! I very much doubt it!:rolleyes:

What if an uninsured driver kills or seriously injures someone? Would it be fair to say in their defence “oh, well they’ve had a tough couple of years and are crap with money so failed to pay the premiums?” NO, it would not! Laws are there for a reason and you’d think the public would want to keep uninsured drivers off the road! But not according to this thread it would seem: “tell her not to go through insurance”, “sort it out yourselves so she doesn’t get into trouble”. Come on!

Interestingly there was a similar thread on these forums earlier this year from an uninsured driver who had been crashed into by an insured driver, and the OP of that thread didn’t get half as much, or indeed ANY, support from readers...Perhaps because he didn't allude to having a tough time a couple of years earlier? :rolleyes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=882283

pvt

Briona,

I spent well over an hour reading through this entire thread this afternoon. I didn't sense in any way, shape, or form, that anyone had sympathy with the OP's daughter. I did sense sympathy for the OP, from some, and given the effort she's doing for her daughter, that seems well deserved. I very much hope her daughter reflects on that and appreciates it.:T

The point here is the separation between the criminal matter of what the OP's daughter did and the civil matter of a car crash. I, like many, am suspicious of whether DD "forgot" to open her letters, or simply found a better use for the monthly insurance installments at Top Shop. Whatever, we don't need to judge her on that - a local magistrate will likely perform that task.

The idea that miffs me is the belief by many on this thread that, irrespective of blame, the other party involved should rightly not have to pay, even if it was him that caused the damage.

I find that quite unfair, and quite bizzare.

Tyler has a point, that the 3rd party's insurer may try to take advantage and wriggle out of the claim - even if it's legitimate - but DD can take the matter to a SCC where costs are limited, and she needn't be intimidated by a big company.

I would just like to see what is fair and just for everyone concerned.

pvt

rose28454

briona wrote: »

I really don’t get why there is so much support for the OP’s daughter! She was NOT insured! She’s committed a criminal offence, and all because the stupid girl was more concerned with buying clothes than with paying her insurance? What if the other driver had been uninsured? Would you all be quite so supportive then?! I very much doubt it!:rolleyes:

What if an uninsured driver kills or seriously injures someone? Would it be fair to say in their defence “oh, well they’ve had a tough couple of years and are crap with money so failed to pay the premiums?” NO, it would not! Laws are there for a reason and you’d think the public would want to keep uninsured drivers off the road! But not according to this thread it would seem: “tell her not to go through insurance”, “sort it out yourselves so she doesn’t get into trouble”. Come on!

Interestingly there was a similar thread on these forums earlier this year from an uninsured driver who had been crashed into by an insured driver, and the OP of that thread didn’t get half as much, or indeed ANY, support from readers...Perhaps because he didn't allude to having a tough time a couple of years earlier? :rolleyes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=882283

Is there any need to make that comment about having s tough couple of years. My daughter suffers from Aneroxia Nervosa,lost most of her hair, had no period for 3 years, rescued her father from an overdose, had to leave home due to alcoholic father and is only now recovering from her ilness. She is on anti depressants and is making great progress. We spoke about the crash tonight and she is resigned to the fact that the police will probably take action against her. If it means she cant drive then that will be that. I cant see why you have to make jibes about her situation.

MrsTinks

I'm not going to read the whole of this thread - I can guess most of the contents I think...
If your daughter drove without insurance she has committed a criminal offence - end of story. This will carry a penalty to be decided by the courts - personally my view is that it should be incarceration because I have seen the effects of accidents where people have decided to run away from their responcibility as they had no insurance. But that is my personal view.
If the other driver in this case was responcible for the damage then THEY or their insurance company will and should pay for the damage - any action against your daughter is a seperate offence altogether. The only thing linking them is that the offence regarding your daughters lack of insurance came to light due to an accident - who caused it remains the same despite this fact.
As for her past history and tough times - I don't see what relation to the offence these have? Was she driving the car to escape abuse or immediate threat? If the answer is no then any issues as to why she has failed to pay the insurance are irrelevant.
That aside you may wish to contact some councelling for her. Anoraxia is a serious illness and needs professional treatment. If she is under more stress at the moment she is also more likely to relapse and will need extra professional support and the fact she is on anti depressants already would indicate that she might need to be re-evaluated under extreem stress which a crash almost certainly will be.

grannybiker

Your daughter is lucky to have such a supportive parent, but at 22, she's no longer a reckless teenager. She really does need to take responsibility for the consequences of her irresponsible behaviour. Thank God no-one was seriously injured as this clearly shows- accidents happen, regardless of how carefully we drive. This could be the wake-up call she needs to start taking control of all aspects of her life.
We may attempt excuse her lack of insurance as "She's rubbish with money," but at the end of the day, she still has a responsibility to insure the car, or not drive at all if she can't afford it. Am aware that the other driver may be at fault for the accident, but would you be so forgiving and keen to have him accept responsibility if she'd been drinking?
As I understand the law, doesn't this make the drinking driver responsible regardless of the circumstances of the accident?
Where do we draw the line at forgiving misdemeanors? At least if she learns from this experience, no-one has died. Sadly this isn't the case with many other youngster's youthful and exuberant driving mistakes.

Edit: Have only just realised this thread is several pages long, sorry. I'd only read page 1 when I responded, so I guess I may well have repeated points already made or missed some vital information. Apologies.
Have now read this latest page however and would again like to repeat how lucky daughter is to have the OP's support. Sounds like life has been tough for her lately and is about to get tougher. However, life can be tough and we need to learn from the past and move forwards. At least they both have the opportunity to do so, given the last paragraph of my original post.
Wishing both the OP and her daughter well as they accept responsiblility and move forward.

David_Aston

Rose, I have followed this post from the beginning. I am amongst those who think your daughter shouldnt have been on the road without insurance. However, these following comments of yours do puzzle me. It is you, who have provided information which other posters have commented on with regards to your daughter, and no-one else. Your can hardly complain about that, surely?
"Is there any need to make that comment about having a tough couple of years."
"I cant see why you have to make jibes about her situation."

pvt

grannybiker wrote: »

As I understand the law, doesn't this make the drinking driver responsible regardless of the circumstances of the accident?

:rolleyes:

I really doubt that very much.

And it has no relevance here anyway.

It might be the case that, in the event of an accident caused by a sober driver hiting a drunk driver, the sober driver could argue that the accident was worsened by the drunk's slugged responses, or even by his/her incapability to avoid an avoidable accident completely. But take the scenario of when a drunk stops at the lights normally and properly, and is shunted in the back by a wreckless, but sober, boy racer - are you seriously suggesting that the drunk's insurer should pay for the boy racer's wrecklessness? That's absurd.

Though admittedly nowhere near as absurd as the idea that the lack of an insurance cover certificate could somehow contribute to the cause of an accident.

pvt

pvt

David_Aston wrote: »

Rose, I have followed this post from the beginning. I am amongst those who think your daughter shouldnt have been on the road without insurance."

David,

8 pages of thread - and I don't recall seeing one single poster suggest she should have been, or that it was excusable.

pvt

bestpud

Oh boy!

I agree the two issues are seperate here. Normally it would be up to the insurance companies to thrash out the details and determine who is at fault. And tbh, while it looks to be the guy at fault, I thought crossing the line on, or near, a junction was not allowed?

Re the insurance - how many months do you think she'd have gone before realising this 'error' and what if she had caused a serious accident in that time period? I hope the police speak to her about it at the very least - and without mummy there making excuses!

She is 22 and I would say her biggest problem is she has been over-protected by her mum and hasn't learned to take responsibility for her own actions!

FGS OP, please let her grow up!!! If she is moving to London then you have to start preparing her properly and that means backing off and making her sort herself out! She is not a 'silly girl' - she is an ADULT!! Let her grow up or she is going to struggle for the rest of her life. You are talking about her like she is 13!

You say she has learned a lesson but tbh I am not sure how when you are making excuses for her and desperately trying to sort it out FOR her. Being a good parent is about letting them go and the hardest part of that is having to watch them make mistakes but resisting the urge to take over and take all the bad stuff away for them. You are doing her no favours at all by dealing with this while telling her you can't always bale her out - she knows you will always bale her out and that is exactly why she is being so irresponsible.

That is a rant - sorry! I really feel you are harming your dd by not letting her grow up.



Re your father - there is a legal distance you must be able to see (while wearning corrective lenses or whatever). Basically you could find out the distance and see if he can read a number plate from that far away - if you are clever about it he need not know you are 'testing' him? It's a bit rough and ready but it would at least give you an idea?

Of course, he could have other problems with his eyesight (close up things/lights etc) so he should ask the optician.

As I understand it, his insuarance company could refuse to pay out if her were at fault because the T&Cs state you have to be legally fit to drive and you will inform then if you are not.

I wonder just how many elderly people are driving around with poor eyesight tbh - I bet it's more of a problem than many of us realise. Quite scary when you think about it!