Damage to static caravan by snowplough - operator denies responsibility

Grumpy_chap

sheramber said:

Apparently the snowplough operating was operating outwith his instructions, as the park road is not a public road.

Hence the council’s insurance doesn’t cover  the incident. 

That might be what the Council have tried as their attempt to avoid the claim landing on them.

I don't think it would really hold up as the Council, or the Sub-Contract company providing the service would be liable under vicarious liability.  The snow-plough operator was employed by the Council / Sub-Contractor to work as a snow-plough operator and was working as a snow-plough operator when the incident happened, hence the employer is vicariously liable for the snow-plough operator's actions.  It is not relevant that the snow-plough operator had covered roads beyond the remit that was briefed.

The two cases that set the limits around vicarious liability both relate to bus operators. 
In one case, as bus driver went off route (or used the bus to pop down the road to buy lunch) and there was some incident.  The employer used a defence that they were not liable as the bus driver was out on a trip of his own.  The court determined that the bus driver was employed to drive a bus, and the bus driver was driving a bus, therefore the bus driver was doing what he was employed to do and the employer was therefore "vicariously liable".
The opposing case was a bus conductor who moved a bus within a bus station and there was an accident.  The employer was held not liable as the bus conductor was not employed to drive a bus and therefore was not doing what he was employed to do - the bus conductor was deemed to be "on a frolic of his own".

(I suspect today, the bus operator in the second case would be held liable under H&S law around keeping the bus keys secure to prevent a bus conductor from driving the bus.)

Even if there was no vicarious liability, the snow-plough will need to carry motor vehicle insurance and I would expect that to cover the incident regardless of whether the snow-plough had been driven off the instructed route.
Consider that the snow-plough driver may have injured a child while driving the snow-plough within the caravan park.  This would still be outside the instructed route.  I very much doubt the "no insurance" comment would even have been made.

The issue might be more complex than the Council's insurance covering the incident as it may fall to a Sub-Contractor service provider, or may fall to the snow-plough's motor policy.  I suspect the Council Officer simply could not be bothered to find out and gave a dismissive reply hoping the issue would go away. 

This is why the OP should claim on their insurance for the caravan and the insurer will have the tools to properly determine where the liability lies and whether there is a third-party from which recovery can be made.

Arunmor

So the snow plough driver was doing a homer at the request of the park's owners for a bit of pocket money.  This has nightmare written all over it, inform your insurers.

Forty years ago I was asked to take drilling rig (land) and do a wee homer, was tempting but then you think about the logistics and downsides, which were very scary.

caravanowner

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You perhaps have an obligation to tell your insurer in any case - if it's like buildings cover, you'd be expected to tell the insurer if there's a significant incident damaging the insured property - so you may as well start the claim process.  Let them decide if they want to limit their losses by pursuing the guilty party.

thanks - our concern is that the insurance company will take the path of least resistance, pay for the repair, not bother to pursue the driver of the snowplough, but then just increase our premium for subsequent years. But we will certainly inform them. 

Arunmor

caravanowner said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You perhaps have an obligation to tell your insurer in any case - if it's like buildings cover, you'd be expected to tell the insurer if there's a significant incident damaging the insured property - so you may as well start the claim process.  Let them decide if they want to limit their losses by pursuing the guilty party.

thanks - our concern is that the insurance company will take the path of least resistance, pay for the repair, not bother to pursue the driver of the snowplough, but then just increase our premium for subsequent years. But we will certainly inform them. 

Think this through.  The caravan owner gives a back hander to the snow plough driver and denies responsibility, the snow plough driver hasn't any money and says tough, the next port of call is the council who also try and deny liability.

You could be in the poor house with legal fees to cover before this mess was sorted out.

caravanowner

The snowplough owner is a local farmer and sits on the Parish Council. It's clearly his fault and he clearly has money. However, our insurers have now said that they will cover the costs (thanks to all those who advised that we should inform them); that their underwriters will nearly certainly pursue the operator for costs; and that our premium won't increase because it's set to be the same for all caravan owners on the park. So I think we're sorted, and won't have to go the County Court (though that wouldn't have cost much, with no lawyers' fees)

Arunmor

A local farmer will work with the council on an as and when basis as a contractor and not an employee.  hios is very common.

Anyway best just to go through your insurer.