excess

bigjl

If the person that hit you was having a hypo and says that caused the accident it is very easy to find out if this is true.

If she was truly having a hypo then she would have been possibly unconscious, certainly acting strangely and would have surely have attended Hospital after the accident.

A diabetic can have hypos for different reasons, took their Insulin and didn't eat properly afterwards or took too much Insulin and didn't realise until it was too late are two possibilities.

What seems likely is that the driver of the car that hit your friend exchanged details then discovered that she may be able to say she had a medical problem rather than admit liability after she got home and thought about it.

I have seen several RTC's caused by MI's, CVA's and Hypo's, yes the medical events caused the driver to lose control, however they didn't exchange details and go on their way either. A Hypo doesn't come and go after a few seconds.

But from what you have said I think it is a ploy to avoid liability. Also make a point of making sure that the DVLA are informed about the hypo, as a diabetic has responsibilities concerning their medical condition, if she says she is causing "accidents" due to an uncontrolled BM then she may have some explaining to do to the DVLA. As vaio has already stated.


Wait for Gene Hunt to come along as he is a Senior Consultant in this field, aswell as being an Engineer, a Barrister, a Professional Footballer, Lawyer, Accountant and the first man to set foot on the moon.

We are all just making things up until he gets here with his "productive comments".

mikey72

bigjl wrote: »

We are all just making things up until he gets here with his "productive comments".

Speak for yourself.
Leave me out of it.

Mustard_Dave

I asked somebody I know in the motor insurance business about this as I was rather curious. Quentin is correct, you cannot be deemed negligent if you are in a state of 'automatism' or more accurately 'sudden loss of facilities' (the former is strictly speaking a criminal term but is often used in these cases). See Mansfield Vs. Weetabix:

[Tort – negligence - duty of care – standard of care expected of drivers]
D owners of lorry. Their driver suffered from lack of glucose to the brain. He was unaware of effect on his driving, C suffered damage to their shop when lorry left road on a bend.

Held: The standard of care that driver was obliged to show was that which is expected of a reasonably competent driver. The driver did not know and could not reasonably have known of his illness that was the cause of the accident. Therefore, he was not at fault. His actions did not fall below the standard of care required.

C lost

However, it is not that black and white. If the driver displayed symptoms of hypoglycaemia and continued to drive, they cannot claim automatism. See Watmore Vs. Jenkins:

[Automatism - reckless driving - total loss of control required – driving without awareness not sufficient]
D drove dangerously while suffering progressive hypoglycaemia gradually lost consciousness over the course of a five-mile drive.

Held: Winn J said a state of automatism is no more than a modern catchphrase, which the courts have not accepted as connoting any wider or looser concept than involuntary movement of the body or limbs. Only when the driver is not really driving at all is the defence of automatism available to him.

Guilty



To escape negligence, it must be shown that it was sudden and he had not reason to think he may become unfit to drive. If you continue to drive feeling ill, even more so when you know you have an existing condition, then you will not escape liability.


My advice still stands - get on to an accident management firm.