Car insurance - uninsured motorcyclist

dacouch

She is not right, just because you are breaking the law does not mean you waive your right to compensation. Think burgalars suing home owners as they injury themselves on barbed wire etc.

You might not agree with it but it is how the UK law works

mattymoo

shelly wrote: »

Of course he's in the wrong! He was riding uninsured!
Regardless of whether someone was on the wrong side of the road and whether that someone was a he or a she, he had no right being on the road.

It also looks like the lady might not have been insured either, but then 2 wrongs never made a right.

Shelly, you are talking about the criminal case against Adam and that has all been dealt with. Civil cases do not always follow criminal in deciding guilt or otherwise. The problem is, how far do you take it?

For example, if I was jaywalking one day (perhaps having had a few too many sherberts) and you hit me with your car, would you turn round and say "not my fault, he had no reason being there, he was breaking the law?"

dacouch

I agree Matty, its the same principle of when someone hits an illegally parked car and tries to blame it on the parked car as it should not have been there.

The illegal parking may have contributed to the claim so may affect the amount they receive but it is still technically the person who hit the cars fault

shelly

I didn't mention liability at all, neither did I say anything about anyone waiving rights to compo.

I was merely pointing out that he was in the wrong to be driving uninsured, simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.

mattymoo

Beg to differ Shelly - you responded to Nunnygirl's post about paying (the civil liability) with "Of course he's in the wrong! He was riding uninsured!"

This whole thread has been about the civil liabilities arising out of this incident. Adam's penalty for the criminal act of riding uninsured was dealt with in the first post. He accepted he was in the wrong and took the punishment.

shelly

mattymoo wrote: »

Beg to differ Shelly - you responded to Nunnygirl's post about paying (the civil liability) with "Of course he's in the wrong! He was riding uninsured!"

This whole thread has been about the civil liabilities arising out of this incident. Adam's penalty for the criminal act of riding uninsured was dealt with in the first post. He accepted he was in the wrong and took the punishment.

I see my mistake, I should have cut the quote shorter, taking out the bit about paying. In my head I responding only to the bit "at the end of the day he's not the one in the wrong"

Sorry for the confusion

oramgepekoe

Were the police called to the accident and did they take statements from Adam, the witness and whoever claimed to be driving the other car once they'd been tracked down?

olly300

oramgepekoe wrote: »

Were the police called to the accident and did they take statements from Adam, the witness and whoever claimed to be driving the other car once they'd been tracked down?

There does seem to be a lot missing from the this story.

If Adam isn't too bright and know from not being too bright then I'm puzzled why someone else in the family didn't intervene earlier.

Gordon861

I would be tempted to contact a 'no win no fee' solicitor that handles motorcycle claims and see what they say. Try to see them in person and take copies of all relevant witness statements.

The fact that he wasn't insured doesn't change the fact that she caused him an injury and is therefore able to be sued. I hope he has a bike licence and can therefore show that even without insurance he is still technically a competent rider.

dacouch

Gordon861 who do you propose he sues for the accident, the post states he swerved to avoid another car and then slide under another car. The first car stopped and then drove off.

He has not doubt bin sued by the second car he slide under as the damage to their car was not their fault.

If there were independent witnesses who say the accident and took the first cars reg number then he could try and sue the first car. I'm guessing this is not the case as he would have already sued them and possibly the second cars insurers would have sued the first cars insurer and not adam.

I might be wrong but this is how I see what happened from the info provided