Note on windscreen

Altarf

Tarambor wrote: »

A driver is the person who is in control of the vehicle. The vehicle does not have to be moving for a person to be considered to be the driver. Truck drivers parked up in bed have been prosecuted for drink driving because they've been in possession of the keys.

The OP doesn't even mention there is someone in the driver's seat when their mother actually opened the door.

For example, aree you suggesting the person that parked the car 20 minutes before and left the other person in the car is still a 'driver'. Not sure how far you would get with that.

What about when the car was parked the night before and someone goes out to get something out of it and bumps the car next door.

Pool cars must be an absolute nightmare as the 'drivers' liability could go on for hours or days after they last used the car.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Well as long as you're certain about that then maybe you can assist the OP when the claim goes in.

More than happy to.

All they need to do is tell the insurance company the driver didn't cause any damage. End of story. End of claim.

Billy_Bullocks

Altarf wrote: »

More than happy to.

All they need to do is tell the insurance company the driver didn't cause any damage. End of story. End of claim.

If you say so.

Billy_Bullocks

Tarambor wrote: »

A driver is the person who is in control of the vehicle. The vehicle does not have to be moving for a person to be considered to be the driver. Truck drivers parked up in bed have been prosecuted for drink driving because they've been in possession of the keys.

No they haven't.

For drunk in charge you need to prove a likelihood to drive. Being in a sleepecab is the same as being at home in bed.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

If you say so.

I do.

On what basis do you believe the OP's insurance has any liability to pay?

George_Michael

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

No they haven't.

For drunk in charge you need to prove a likelihood to drive. Being in a sleepecab is the same as being at home in bed.

Incorrect. The CPS do not have to prove anything.
You have to prove that there no likelihood that you were going to drive.

If you have control of a vehicle on a road or public place whilst over the limit (and by being inside with the keys you have control of it) then unless you can prove otherwise, you are committing an offence.

Billy_Bullocks

George_Michael wrote: »

Incorrect. The CPS do not have to prove anything.
You have to prove that there no likelihood that you were going to drive.

If you have control of a vehicle on a road or public place whilst over the limit (and by being inside with the keys you have control of it) then unless you can prove otherwise, you are committing an offence.

And you've interviewed how many for being drunk in charge?

It's up to the prosecution (CPS) to prove any case at trail.

Altarf

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

If you say so.

And in case you are still trying to defend your argument, take a look at Brown v Roberts [1965] regarding whether an insurance company has to pay out for a passenger opening a door.

In that case a passenger in a car was negligent in opening their door and injured a pedestrian. The court held the passenger was not using the car in the statutory sense, because they had no control over the vehicle.

So the driver was not therefore causing or permitting the passenger to use the vehicle and thus not liable for damages for breach of statutory duty in not insuring the passenger against their potential liability.

George_Michael

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

And you've interviewed how many for being drunk in charge?

It's up to the prosecution (CPS) to prove any case at trail.

Try reading the legislation that covers this. It's all there in black and white.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5
The offence is committed by being drunk whilst in charge unless you can prove that you were not going to drive. The CPS do not have to prove that you were.

Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.
(1)
If a person—
(a) drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.

(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm#What_is_the_legal_definition_of_being_in_charge

What if I was in my car on my driveway having a cigarette trying to keep warm and I had no intention of driving?

There is no need for the prosecution to prove that a person was likely to drive whilst unfit or over the limit. It is for the Defendant to prove that there is no prospect of using the vehicle.

Billy_Bullocks

George_Michael wrote: »

Try reading the legislation that covers this. It's all there in black and white.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5
The offence is committed by being drunk whilst in charge unless you can prove that you were not going to drive. The CPS do not have to prove that you were.



http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm#What_is_the_legal_definition_of_being_in_charge

So show us a truck driver who's been convicted.