Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

tommyjj

Hi everyone,

A relative of mine had their car written off a few days ago while it was parked outside his house.

It was hit in the rear by a young woman who two witnesses have said was on her phone at the time.

I've not got the full details yet, but her insurance company is reporting that she's claiming she blacked out (which was the cause of the accident) and consequently is not liable for the accident - meaning that he had to claim on his own insurance. They've also claimed that he knows both the witnesses (he doesn't) and their statements are thus inadmissible.

I don't know a great deal about insurance liability, but I've never heard of anything like this. Some people have tried using such a defence (blacking out) to avoid dangerous driving convictions, but surely her insurance company should still cover her?

Also, her insurance company have apparently conveyed all this by email, so it's recorded. If, as I suspect, they're talking rubbish, who should we report them to?

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Aylesbury_Duck

It doesn't sound like the third party has a leg to stand on. With two genuinely independent witnesses to say she was visibly conscious and on the phone at the time of the crash, she doesn't stand a chance.

Even if she did genuinely black out, it's still her fault. Tell your relative to relax, remain calm and continue working with their insurer.

waamo

Has the errant driver informed the DVLA about blackouts? If not it's your duty to so they can revoke her licence pending medical clearance.

It's only fair to check with her first and inform her as to what you are going to do.

https://www.gov.uk/blackouts-and-driving

Aylesbury_Duck

waamo wrote: »

Has the errant driver informed the DVLA about blackouts? If not it's your duty to so they can revoke her licence pending medical clearance.

It's only fair to check with her first and inform her as to what you are going to do.

https://www.gov.uk/blackouts-and-driving

I like your style!

tommyjj

I'm wondering whether she's stupidly told police she blacked out to avoid dangerous driving conviction and her insurance company have said she's consequently not insured because she didn't report blackouts to them when signing up?

Surely they'd still honour the third party section of the claim though, the same as when a drunk driver crashes

Aylesbury_Duck

Yes, they would be obliged to honour the third party's legitimate claim.

waamo

tommyjj wrote: »

I'm wondering whether she's stupidly told police she blacked out to avoid dangerous driving conviction and her insurance company have said she's consequently not insured because she didn't report blackouts to them when signing up?

Surely they'd still honour the third party section of the claim though, the same as when a drunk driver crashes

There is a difference between not liable and not insured. Have they stated she isn't insured? If so she's opening up a world of pain for herself.

Do the police know about this development? 6 points for no insurance.

Tigsteroonie

Let your relative's insurance company refute the claim on his behalf, that's what they are paid to do. They might ask if your relative knows the witnesses, the answer is an honest 'no'. The insurance company can decide whether to contact the witnesses, and what to do with their statements.

At this stage I don't think there's any need to "report" her insurance company. The two insurance companies can talk to each other.

PasturesNew

They'd be able to get/prove she was on the phone .... if they can be pushed to do so as that side of evidence gathering can be a bit hit and miss as to who/why could do it and whether they can be bothered... insurance might be bothered, police feel they have more urgent things to do so it'd sit in the pile... but that's a route to pursue.

unholyangel

I have no idea what the insurers are on but they're clearly not talking fact and I'd point this out to them.

There is enough case law to establish without any doubt (whether reasonable or otherwise) that witness statements are not inadmissible simply because they know one of the drivers. However less weight may be given to their statements compared to a third party with no affiliations.

Do you know if the police were looking into it? Her using the phone I mean.

Perhaps point out to the insurance company that they could easily refute the witness statements by requesting their client provide them with a copy of their call/message history from her network. Might be harder to tell if it was something sent/using internet but if it was a text or call the network should definitely have a record of it.

john_white

PasturesNew wrote: »

They'd be able to get/prove she was on the phone .... if they can be pushed to do so as that side of evidence gathering can be a bit hit and miss as to who/why could do it and whether they can be bothered... insurance might be bothered, police feel they have more urgent things to do so it'd sit in the pile... but that's a route to pursue.

They can only prove it if the witnesses are independent and say she was on the phone.