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

angrycrow

Somebody's got one on them tonight.

AndyMc.....

angrycrow wrote: »

Somebody's got one on them tonight.

So it's something you just made up?

facade

I think the crux of the matter is if she blacked out due to a previously undiagnosed medical condition of which she was unaware, then she was not negligent and is therefore not liable for any damage caused. (And her insurance won't have to pay any third parties)



Like if my car were to burst into flames when parked due to an electrical fault that I was unaware of, and set fire to an entire multi-storey carpark full of Maybachs, it wouldn't be my fault, and therefore my insurance would not pay as I would not be liable.



Now if it can be proved that she didn't black out, or that if she did she was aware that she could black out at any moment, she would be liable, and her insurance would have to pay third parties

Mercdriver

Knowing witnesses doesn't make their testimony inadmissable. It can be your husband or wife but the evidence would still be admissable. It just means that it carries less weight. The amount of weight depends on how close you are to the witness. The insurance company are trying it on.

tommyjj

facade wrote: »

Like if my car were to burst into flames when parked due to an electrical fault that I was unaware of, and set fire to an entire multi-storey carpark full of Maybachs, it wouldn't be my fault, and therefore my insurance would not pay as I would not be liable.

I'm pretty sure that, if it could be proven that your car started the fire, your insurance would be liable.

Nasqueron

john_white wrote: »

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

Erm, you do know that both phones and the operator record details of phone calls taking place and these will easily prove if she was at the time of the accident?


There was one case on one of those police TV shows where a woman crossed a lane in front of a biker and knocked him off who was on the phone. She deleted the call record from her phone but the operator confirmed she was on the phone and she was prosecuted

AndyMc.....

Nasqueron wrote: »

Erm, you do know that both phones and the operator record details of phone calls taking place and these will easily prove if she was at the time of the accident?


There was one case on one of those police TV shows where a woman crossed a lane in front of a biker and knocked him off who was on the phone. She deleted the call record from her phone but the operator confirmed she was on the phone and she was prosecuted

It’s not that simple if the police didn’t seize her phone at the time.

Who’s to say she had possession of the phone at the time of the accident?

SG27

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

This is true. I blacked out driving once (due to an earlier unrelated head injury) the police made me go to the doctor who removed my licence for 6 months as a precaution even though the cause was known. At the time it was hard work convincing the police I was not concious but what swayed it was lack of skid marks indicating I crashed without touching the breaks.

Ultimately my insurance paid for the third party damage.

AdrianC

SG27 wrote: »

...but what swayed it was lack of skid marks indicating I crashed without touching the breaks.

Well, without locking them.

SG27

AdrianC wrote: »

Well, without locking them.

It was quite an impact In not sure anyone would have the self control to not lock the brakes and suffer a more serious crash!