Friend in a bit of a pickle...

Strider590

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

Occasionally I've been asked to move servers using my own car. I've always refused as I'm not insured for business uses. I guess this may seem 'petty' to some, but the consequences if something goes wrong certainly aren't!

It seems petty only to those who haven't been asked themselves.
What im saying is... They'd slag you off for it to make themselves look good, standard practice these days.

vaio

JQ. wrote: »

.....Perhaps you could provide some real world examples of how vicarious liability can be applied to driving a privately owned car on company business.

How about http://businessdatabase.indicator.co.uk/article.php?nlid=UKTACDAR_EU070902&src=search&domid=44&t=77&k=659

or for actual case law try http://www.lectureme.studio400.me.uk/resources/VICARIOUS+LIABILITY+ed2.pdf

particularly Smith v Stages [1989] 1 All ER 833, HL

A workman was injured while travelling in a car owned and driven by a colleague. The two men were required to travel to various places to do their work, and were paid "travelling time" accordingly, but the means of travel were left to them. The House of Lords said the injury occurred while the driver was acting in the course of his employment, and the employer was vicariously liable. Lord Lowry said that while travel from home to a regular place of work (or vice versa) is not generally in the course of employment, travel in the employer's time between workplaces, or to or from an unusual workplace, or in a peripatetic occupation is in the course of employment.

Lots more similar out there

newbie007_2

I think the Matt were carrying out his working duties, hence his employer should pay for the damages? Why would Matt have to cough up when he was performing a work task? I used to work in a courier's office, occasionally I would get ask to pick up some assignment or move the van, If I were to have an accident, then no way would I cough up anything.

JQ.

I can't read the first link as it requires a password I'm afraid. Second link looks good, although it would appear that all the cases involving vehicles relate to personal injury, does that differ from just a standard car crash?

Can you explain what the purpose of the business use classification on car insurance policies is? If the above is correct it's pointless.

vaio

I guess it's like all insurance, it means that if you're found liable then you don't have to pay out out cash, you can make insurance claim but the liability doesn't go away if you don't have insurance.

JQ.

Yes, but you're saying is that the liability is not mine, the liability lies with my employer as the car is being driven for business purposes. Therefore, nobody needs business cover on private cars, as you would claim for any damages from your employer, as the liability rests with them according to the descriptions of Vicarious Liability. Is that what you're saying?

mikey72

JQ. wrote: »

Yes, but you're saying is that the liability is not mine, the liability lies with my employer as the car is being driven for business purposes. Therefore, nobody needs business cover on private cars, as you would claim for any damages from your employer, as the liability rests with them according to the descriptions of Vicarious Liability. Is that what you're saying?

I have business cover on my vehicles, as I'm self employed.
When I wasn't, my employer was definately liable. The usual way they satisfied this was to insist that if you used your own car, you gave them a copy of your insurance stating you had business use, and a copy of your driving licence. They also introduced limits on driving, and a lot of H&S. All these rules didn't make them not liable, it gave them a claim on you, and the right to sack you if you lied to them.

JQ.

Fair enough - that's what I couldn't really get over in this whole thread.

Cheers for clearing it up.