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

AndyMc.....

Nasqueron wrote: »

That's called moving the goal posts.


You said they couldn't prove she wasn't using the phone without seizing it nor that they could prove it was with her, that's incorrect. Whether the police choose to do so for a basic RTA is irrelevant as that wasn't the point I was answering.


You could simply admit you were wrong and move on and you'd look a whole lot better than trying to keep changing the argument to make it appear you're right.

No, I didn't.

Nasqueron

AndyMc..... wrote: »

No, I didn't.

Ah my wording was slightly off on the first point, I apologise


You said

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

That bit of course is wrong, it IS that simple, the police don't need to seize her phone to prove it was used



The second part is still wrong,

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

They can prove easily it was with her.


As I said though, talking about whether the police will do it or not is irrelevant, your post implies it is difficult to prove that the phone was in use and with her, which is incorrect

AndyMc.....

Nasqueron wrote: »

Ah my wording was slightly off on the first point, I apologise


You said






That bit of course is wrong, it IS that simple, the police don't need to seize her phone to prove it was used



The second part is still wrong,





They can prove easily it was with her.


As I said though, talking about whether the police will do it or not is irrelevant, your post implies it is difficult to prove that the phone was in use and with her, which is incorrect

Why? Because you've seen it on tv.

The can plot the phone to an area but not necessarily the scene of the accident.

A lot easier and cheaper if the seized the phone, so why's to comment wrong? Because you disagree?