Liability and negligence hypothetical question.

MHartley

I've been reading through the forum and it's become apparent that in order to be liable for damage to a third party, you have to have been negligent.

A few months ago I had a front tyre blowout on the motorway. Thankfully I was able to control the car and get it safely to the hard shoulder.

However, if I had lost control and collided with another vehicle, would the fact that I wasn't negligent mean that the TP couldn't then claim for their damages from my insurance? This seems perverse to me.

If the TP were only insured TPF&T and the collision caused their car to be written off, they would be left with nothing?

Thanks for reading.

Retrogamer

There are some examples that have been posted on here over the years that prove exactly that and for the whole thing to work it has to be negligence based.

The worst example i remember was a truck yard with lots of trailers / trucks. They allowed a man to store his caravan there as well. One day when he was towing out his caravan, his car stalled and caught fire due to an electrical fault. The heat from the fire caused damage to the tarmac and the surrounding trucks and trailers.
The insurance didn't pay out to the third parties because the damage didn't occur as the result of their client being negligent.

Likewise another poster was driving along the motorway and a truck beside them had a blow out. The blow out caused a plastic wheel gaurd on the truck to "explode" into bits and some of the bits damaged the car driving beside it.
They were also unable to claim from the truck as there had been no negligence as the truck driver (or firm can't remember) was able to produce records that showed checks had been carried out on the tyres before the journey started

The example you have provided is a bit more sketchy as you'd have no way of demonstrating your blow out didn't happen due to using unsafe tyres.
If you had a heart attack or black out, randomly and without any prior health issues or concerns and you crashed into someone because of that, then your insurance wouldn't need to pay out either

alchemist.1

The line you would go down is lack of maintenance of the vehicle.

MHartley

alchemist.1 wrote: »

The line you would go down is lack of maintenance of the vehicle.

I have TPMS valves fitted to the vehicle and I visually inspect the tyres weekly.
What maintenance prevents tyre blowouts?

dacouch

I believe there is a book about this very matter it is called Tyre Checking by M R Hartley

agrinnall

MHartley wrote: »

I have TPMS valves fitted to the vehicle and I visually inspect the tyres weekly.
What maintenance prevents tyre blowouts?

Did you find out why you had the previous blow out? If so that should point you in the direction of what maintenance could have prevented it in the first place.

Mungo76

dacouch wrote: »

I believe their is a book about this very matter it is called Tyre checking by M R Hartley

He wrote in his retirement.

MHartley

agrinnall wrote: »

Did you find out why you had the previous blow out? If so that should point you in the direction of what maintenance could have prevented it in the first place.

I didn't, no. I've obviously Googled possible causes since, which is the reason I now have TPMS valves fitted.

Aretnap

MHartley wrote: »

However, if I had lost control and collided with another vehicle, would the fact that I wasn't negligent mean that the TP couldn't then claim for their damages from my insurance? This seems perverse to me.

If the TP were only insured TPF&T and the collision caused their car to be written off, they would be left with nothing?.

Why is it perverse? Do you think the other driver should be able to claim against someone else for every bit of misfortune that befalls him in life, regardless of whether that person was to blame for the misfortune? And if he hasn't insured his car against accidental damage, then losing it in a car accident is presumably a risk that he's decided that he's willing to take.

Broadly speaking there are accidents which are someone's fault, and there are accidents which are pure bad luck and which could not have been prevented with any reasonable amount of care and foresight. If someone else is at fault them you can usually claim against them (or their insurers, if they have any), but if you want to be protected against the ones which are pure bad luck then the onus is on you to insure yourself against them.

(In practice your insurer might end up paying out in this case rather than getting involved in a long and complex argument about the state of the tyre and what if any responsibility you had for the accident. But in principle yes, a claim again a third party requires evidence of negligence of the party of that third party.)

alchemist.1

MHartley wrote: »

I have TPMS valves fitted to the vehicle and I visually inspect the tyres weekly.
What maintenance prevents tyre blowouts?

You didnt inspect the tyres properly?