Accident on motorway

InsideInsurance

IanMSpencer wrote: »

In driving a car on the public roads, it is a legal requirement of taking a car on the road that you have insurance cover for third party risks.

If your vehicle causes damage, then you are liable and your insurance company has a legal duty to cover your liability. They may be able to recover their losses from other parties (e.g. the tyre manufacturer) but that is their problem. This insurance exists even if it is found that the insurer no longer is liable to the driver, say due to drink invalidating the insurance.

There is a legal requirement for you to have third party liability insurance. For personal customers this must be unlimited cover for bodily injury and several million pounds for property damage.

If you have no liability then the insurance doesnt pay. Now in the case of a manufacturing defect the insurer may CHOOSE to settle third party claims and then look to recover all peoples losses from the manufacturer but are under no obligation to do so.

Drink driving is different as here, presumably, you have liability but you have indemnity issues on the policy. Here the RTA requires the insurer to settle the third party claims despite the indemnity issues but they then have the right of recovery from both the driver and the policyholder

If for example, a parked and unattended vehicle is hit by an unknown car and pushed onto the kerb and into a garden wall. Who do you think should pay? Legally only the hit and run driver is liable for the accident depsite the parked car being the one that caused damage to the wall and assuming the car remains unidentified then each other party has to carry their own losses.

No liability - no payout from the TP section

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If for example, a parked and unattended vehicle is hit by an unknown car and pushed onto the kerb and into a garden wall. Who do you think should pay? Legally only the hit and run driver is liable for the accident depsite the parked car being the one that caused damage to the wall and assuming the car remains unidentified then each other party has to carry their own losses.

No liability - no payout from the TP section

That is a very different case, clearly an unknown party can be shown to be liable - in the same way if you are the middle car in a shunt and can show you were not driving too closely you would not be liable for the damage to the car in front.

This case is clear cut: the other driver acknowledges that their car had a mechanical failure which caused the accident. We are not concerned whether another party is responsible for that mechanical failure, at this point the liability to the third party involved is clearly with the original driver. It is up to that driver's insurers as to whether they want to recover their losses from another party.

The point is really that it is the car that is insured third party, not the driver. If the car rolled away down the hill, the insurers would be liable even though he driver was not present (and yes we can play games with who was ultimately responsible, but essentially anyone who suffered damage or injury from that car would expect to be able to be properly compensated).

Bantex_2

IanMSpencer wrote: »

That is a very different case, clearly an unknown party can be shown to be liable - in the same way if you are the middle car in a shunt and can show you were not driving too closely you would not be liable for the damage to the car in front.

This case is clear cut: the other driver acknowledges that their car had a mechanical failure which caused the accident. We are not concerned whether another party is responsible for that mechanical failure, at this point the liability to the third party involved is clearly with the original driver. It is up to that driver's insurers as to whether they want to recover their losses from another party.

The point is really that it is the car that is insured third party, not the driver. If the car rolled away down the hill, the insurers would be liable even though he driver was not present (and yes we can play games with who was ultimately responsible, but essentially anyone who suffered damage or injury from that car would expect to be able to be properly compensated).

That is just not the case unless some sort of liability is established. eg. Did not engage handbrake, vehicle not serviced etc.

InsideInsurance

IanMSpencer wrote: »

That is a very different case, clearly an unknown party can be shown to be liable - in the same way if you are the middle car in a shunt and can show you were not driving too closely you would not be liable for the damage to the car in front.

This case is clear cut: the other driver acknowledges that their car had a mechanical failure which caused the accident. We are not concerned whether another party is responsible for that mechanical failure, at this point the liability to the third party involved is clearly with the original driver. It is up to that driver's insurers as to whether they want to recover their losses from another party.

The point is really that it is the car that is insured third party, not the driver. If the car rolled away down the hill, the insurers would be liable even though he driver was not present (and yes we can play games with who was ultimately responsible, but essentially anyone who suffered damage or injury from that car would expect to be able to be properly compensated).

Not at all, its very much insuring the driver of the car as if the insurance wasnt in place they would personally have to pay - as they do if they are driving without insurance (though the MIB picks up in the first place)

As has been said time and time again, there is not always "someone to blame" for an accident. The other classic example is someone who is perfectly fit, healthy and feeling well goes out for a drive and has their first ever epileptic fit and drives into another vehicle.

Again, its not their fault they developed a medical condition whilst driving. They were not negligent. Its a blameless accident where both parties carry their own losses.

If the person was unwell, had a history of fits etc then its a different matter of cause.

Wig

AdrianC wrote: »

You hassle the company vehicle administrator responsible for the vehicle - your customer, I presume? It's their job, after all.

The state of the other driver's tyres, and their speed, are both utterly irrelevant. They lost control - whether through their driving or a mechanical failure or whatever - and hit you. They are liable for your claim. Stop talking to THEM, personally, and either talk directly to their insurer (£4 from askmid.co.uk if they won't give you the details themselves, even though they have a legal obligation to) or just go through your own insurance.

Your statement seems to be at odds with the case mentioned above Barkway v SWT.

I just looked it up, and found that for the OP to benefit from Res ipsa loquitur the cause of the accident must be unknown. If the Police report has it down as "blown tyre caused accident" then the OP will have to prove negligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur

dacouch

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Third party liability is not necessarily about blame. Things happen, there is damage. Insurance liability is not necessarily apportioned by blame but where there is damage caused to a third party, then the insurers accept the liability for it.

The proper way for this to be dealt with is for the OP's insurers to sort the claim out, and I would normally expect the car that collided with the OP to foot the bill. The accident would not have occurred had it not been for the other vehicle. It is for the other vehicle's insurer to debate whether it was tyre, or maintenance or owner and see whether they could recover the costs.

Put it this way, if a car crashed into your garden wall due to a puncture (let's even say that it was shown to be caused by some litter on the road from some unknown vehicle where there would be no chance of tracing it), would you expect the driver's insurance to pay? Of course you would, it is exactly the sort of situation that is covered. There is no blame, but there is an understanding that there is a risk that such an occurrence happens.

I would not be engaging with the other driver, but I would clearly state that you do not believe that they were personally to blame for the accident but do believe that they are liable for the damage caused and that is what their insurance is there for.

If my insurer accepted a knock for knock and the accident cost me either loss of no claims or increased premium then I would be making a formal complaint and asking what it was that they held me to blame for when the cause was entirely accepted to be due to the consequences of a failure on a third party's vehicle entirely beyond my control.

Apart from the inaccuracies about liability, are you aware "Knock for Knock" has not existed for twenty odd years. I think you may be confusing it with split liability eg 50/50

OnanTheBarbarian

The OP has started another thread on the same topic here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66250682#Comment_66250682

I have replied on there, but have also copied & pasted my reply in this thread to keep everything in one place

As has been posted on the other thread you started, the problem with your claim is very much the liability aspect for the other motorist who had the blow out.

Cases involving a blow out, especially if it is a private car and not a commercial vehicle etc, are very difficult to get liability nailed down for actually establishing NEGLIGENCE.

Negligence is the key issue here. Yes their vehicle hit you and therefore the other vehicle can be "blamed" for causing damage to your property and injury and resulting losses to you, but the blow out arising does not necessarily establish negligence, unless there is evidence the tyre was in a poor state to start with. This would give you the key evidence to say it was negligent of the other motorist to not keep their vehicle in a safe and roadworthy manner.

Because it could be many weeks or even months before the issue of liability for negligence can be established, you really need to act in a manner as if there was no claim going on. i.e. what would you be doing now if say you had stuffed your van into a tree on a country road and injured yourself in the same way and had nobody you could claim against?

By acting in this way you will mitigate your losses (which you are obliged to do where possible anyway) but also you will perhaps not dig as big a financial hole for yourself in the event you cannot establish negligence and therefore are unable to make a claim against the other party.

What I mean here is for your earnings side of things in particular. You are self employed, you have a contract to serve. If the claim succeeds, you will only be able to claim your net lost profit that you would have earned, had you been able to complete all the jobs you usually would. So you can't claim loss of gross income, you can only claim the equivalent amount you would earn in profit, net of any relevant tax and NI etc.

If you have a concern that you are not going to be able to fulfil your duties and therefore Railtrack offer your contract out to someone else (which will create a far bigger future loss of income for you than the immediate losses you are facing) why not see if you can sub-contract your jobs out to someone?

By doing this, you won't see the same level of income after you have paid subby fees, but at least it avoids you ending up in a breach of contract situation and losing the gig all together.

If the claim has prospects of success, you are still then able to claim the net amount of money you are out of pocket by after paying the sub-contractor, but at least you stand a chance of still having a contract to service in the future?

OnanTheBarbarian

The other caselaw that is helpful for tyre blow out cases is Elliott -v- Chiew 1966.

In this case it was not a "blow out" as such, more a flat tyre and the vehicle going out of control when the Defendant applied their brakes on realising a problem with the rear tyre. The Claimant was a passenger in the Defendant's car.

A police officer gave evidence that after the accident, the rear offside tyre was flat.

An expert gave evidence that the tyre had probably deflated gradually and that it should have been possible to bring the car under control. The judge found that the cause of the accident was in all probability a deflated tyre, that when the brakes were applied, the car went out of control and that nothing a reasonably competent driver could have done at that time could have prevented the accident. The Claimant's claim was therefore dismissed.

The Claimant appealed, it was HELD ON APPEAL: "it was essentially a matter for the judge who heard the case and saw the witnesses. The principle of res ipsa loquitur enabled the claimant to get the case on its legs but at the end the judge had to ask himself: was the defendant negligent or not? It was a matter for regret that he had not referred to the expert's evidence but a judgment was not to be criticised because the judge did not refer to everything which no doubt had passed through his mind. Where there was evidence from the driver and passengers from which the judge could conclude that the driver was not guilty of negligence the Court of Appeal should not interfere.

thenudeone

IanMSpencer wrote: »

If your vehicle causes damage, then you are liable and your insurance company has a legal duty to cover your liability.

Despite several posts already stating the correct position, you are still giving factually incorrect advice.

Your insurer will only pay out to third parties if you are liable, i.e. responsible, for the accident.

Your insurer WILL NOT pay out to third parties for damage caused by your vehicle if you aren't responsible. A tyre blowout is one example where you might not be liable, but many others exist, for example an unforseeable medical emergency such as a heart attack.

If you don't believe me, look at this BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7740049.stm

arcon5

If you don't believe me, look at this BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7740049.stm

That's 6yrs old - shame nothing came of it