Bro knocked off motorbike, not his fault, BUT...

Prothet_of_Doom

m0bov wrote: »

what is his loss?

He's not going to work for a few weeks, so there's loss of earnings, and the long term health issues that might or might not result.

All hinges on whether there was any way that not being drunk he might have avoided the accident.

George_Michael

curlywurlytalktalk wrote: »

The only thing he won't be able to claim for is a hire bike whilst his if off the road.

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Why not?????

Well, I would have thought that a minimum of a one year ban for riding whilst drunk along with the points and possible ban for riding whilst uninsured would prevent any claim for a hired bike being an issue.

Aretnap

Mercdriver wrote: »

No he wouldn't be in a better position, he would simply have something ride in lieu of the bike that was written off/damaged. If what you said were true no one would get hire cars in the event of an accident.

I think the point is that he would have got a ride in lieu of the bike that he wasn't allowed to ride in the first place, because he hadn't insured it.

The fact that he can't use his bike because of the accident doesn't represent a loss because he couldn't (legally) use it before the accident either. Hence he can't claim compensation for loss of use, either in the form of a hire bike, or of a daily rate. He can of course still claim for the diminution in value of his bike (ie the repair/write off cost).

It's a minor point anyway, as the cost of hiring a bike for a few days would be trivial compared to the personal injury aspect of the claim.

Tothepoint.

George_Michael wrote: »

Well, I would have thought that a minimum of a one year ban for riding whilst drunk along with the points and possible ban for riding whilst uninsured would prevent any claim for a hired bike being an issue.

He's not been convicted yet and I doubt he's even been charged.

Tothepoint.

Squirrel85 wrote: »

Thank you to those who didn't give me a summary of my brothers morals - I already know he is an idiot. I also do not require a lecture on how dangerous drunk driving is - I know. Nor was I asking for anyones sympathy. My mum and I are ashamed of him and mortified of what he has done.

I'm after legalities not ethics. He will be punished fo the drink driving and driving without tax etc. as he should be. Whether that is sufficient decide for yourself but I don't need to know.

It will take him 3 months mininimum to walk again and that's if there are no complications. My mum will have to care for him during this time. He will have physical problems for life as his leg is now bolted together with metal. So, while I'm his severest critic, I do still feel he needs to financially get by till he can work again and deserves some compensation as genuinely his being over the limit did not contribute to the accident and the man driving the car did a very stupid and impatient thing to cause this accident.

It is the legal side I'm interested in - thank you to the few people who gave me an answer to this. It was helpful.

What was his blood alcohol reading?

George_Michael

Tothepoint. wrote: »

He's not been convicted yet and I doubt he's even been charged.

True but as he has both a broken femur and pelvis, it's going to be quite a few months before he can even think about riding again and if the OP is correct in their view that their brother was above the legal alcohol limit, any court case and subsequent ban will happen long before getting another bike on the road will be a possibility.

Tothepoint.

George_Michael wrote: »

True but as he has both a broken femur and pelvis, it's going to be quite a few months before he can even think about riding again and if the OP is correct in their view that their brother was above the legal alcohol limit, any court case and subsequent ban will happen long before getting another bike on the road will be a possibility.

So there's no reason why he wouldn't be entitled to a hire bike if he were in a position to ride it?

Joe_Horner

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

[...] I pay insurance so expect to be covered and someone who does not pay should not be covered.

The problem with that approach is that it would also rule out payments to pedestrians, most cyclists, many horse riders and any uninsured homes you parked through the wall of.

Any compensation payment is only to cover the harm / damage caused by the negligent driver - as mentioned above, a payout in exchange for a life changing injury can hardly be called "profiting" from it.

arcon5

iammumtoone wrote: »

^^ I pay my car insurance I sometimes wonder why I bother. If I stop paying it, it seems if someone hits me no problem I can still claim fully against them. If I hit someone, well they can try to sue me they might win but they can't get what I don't have so I won't lose anything. I am paying out 100s each year that I don't need to.

But that aside the law is the law then if the OPs brother wasn't insured then he has every right to claim off the other parties insurance.

The law needs changing so an uninsured/no MOT driver can't claim against anyone. Maybe more people would have insurance if that was the case.

They can take your civil liberties by imprisoning you.
They can take away your career prospects if you have a criminal record. The simple fact is being 'that guy' leaves very little room to improve the quality of life whereas not being that guy still leaves you with prospects and freedom.


The law is correct and doesn't need changing. His lack of documentation doesn't make the other guys actions any less wrong. The other guy has inflicted injuries and losses on somebody and should rightfully have to pay that. The bike valuation can be based on it having no mot so value reduced.

As to the poster suggesting a criminal fine matching the injury payout, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard... if the guy has lifelong injuries why shouldn't his medical expenses and additional living costs be coveted?

Let's not forget here the other guy isn't a victim in any way, just a careless driver who inflicted injury, inconvenience and loss on another road user

Marvel1

Mercdriver wrote: »

No he wouldn't be in a better position, he would simply have something ride in lieu of the bike that was written off/damaged. If what you said were true no one would get hire cars in the event of an accident.

When my car was written off outside my home parked up, I couldn't have courtesy car because it was a write off.