responsible for leased vehicle

thebullsback

My employer with Trade union blessing has agreed that should the driver of any of the numerous lease vehicle provided cause damage to or be involved in any accident that brakes any Road traffic act the driver will bepersonally responsible for any costs.
Any thoughts ???

Takeaway_Addict

thebullsback wrote: »

My employer with Trade union blessing has agreed that should the driver of any of the numerous lease vehicle provided cause damage to or be involved in any accident that brakes any Road traffic act the driver will bepersonally responsible for any costs.
Any thoughts ???

My thought was did you intend that pun?

thebullsback

contravenes then

Takeaway_Addict

thebullsback wrote: »

contravenes then

breaks....

I'm going to go with no for my original question.

sangie595

thebullsback wrote: »

My employer with Trade union blessing has agreed that should the driver of any of the numerous lease vehicle provided cause damage to or be involved in any accident that brakes any Road traffic act the driver will bepersonally responsible for any costs.
Any thoughts ???

So basically, the employer says that if you break the law with your company vehicle that causes damage to your vehicle or someone else, you should be responsible? Who do you think should be responsible? Who do you think your trades union should think is responsible? And how on earth is it not you who is responsible?

thebullsback

sangie595 if you read my post you will see I have NOT expressed any thoughts of my own on this matter I am asking for readers comments.
Maybe your a little tense or ill at ease with life so i will forgive you,bless.

Prothet_of_Doom

Understanding what vicarious liability means for employers
Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.

If an employee, makes a mistake, during the course of their employment, then the employer is liable, unless it can be proven that the mistake was due to a deliberate act, knowingly against company procedure, or against the laws of the land.

So if an employee makes a mistake when driving, which was not deliberate, then the employer must show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent mistakes. Did they train the employees in defensive/advanced driving? Did they fit speed limiters and tracking devices, and cameras and monitor the staff ?
I don't think it is good enough to say "If they are found guilty of a traffic offence" because speed limits are sometimes confused. Just the other day I was driving at 5:30 am down a road that last time I looked was 60 mph, and it's now 30 mph, (some 7 years have passed since I used this road daily) and I may have been flashed by a gatso at a bit under 40 mph. Had I crashed (it happens - in 30 years of driving and an estimated 450000 miles I've crashed 5 times - 4 times was my fault), my insurance company would pay up, but what of the poor employee in the Original Post? Does that mean the employee needs to take out his own insurance to cover himself ?

sangie595

thebullsback wrote: »

sangie595 if you read my post you will see I have NOT expressed any thoughts of my own on this matter I am asking for readers comments.
Maybe your a little tense or ill at ease with life so i will forgive you,bless.

You expressed your thoughts by asking the question in the way you did. Or let me put it another way - who do you think should be responsible. Oh heck - well I asked you that question already.

Any thoughts?

sangie595

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

what of the poor employee in the Original Post?

And what about the poor employer whose insurance shoots through the roof because some employee decides to travel at 60 mph on a 30mph road because several years ago the speed limit was 60mph? If you drive then your responsibility is to follow the laws of the land today - not what they were some years ago. Some years ago you didn't actually need a driving licence at all - I suppose that would be ok if someone is driving with a licence now, provided they knew it used to be the case?

Driving at 60mph on a 30mph is not a mistake - it is carelessness. Drivers are supposed to be awake when in control of a vehicle, thus being able to observe the speed limit today. Which is possibly why having been driving for 40 years, nationally and internationally, I have only been involved in three RTA's - and none of them were my fault. But I really do wish you good luck with the "it used to be 60, officer" defence.

CKhalvashi

We have a system in place where the driver will pay the excess on the insurance (subject to London Living Wage) if found to be at fault for an accident.

We also have a system where a minimum of 2 signatures are required before any set of keys are released (so there is no dispute on fines/points etc) and if these aren't present, the fleet manager (who apart from me, is the only person with access to the safe with the keys in) is held liable for it.

I feel that's reasonable, and we have a low (in industry terms) turnover of employees, so I'm not the only one, it seems.

theoretica

My thoughts are that this needs clarifying. What are the costs they are talking about and what steps are taken to minimise them? For instance at least 3rd party insurance is a legal requirement, and most places have more than that in place.