MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Right, I'm afraid I'm still confused about this. Scenario (1) appears to be:
Scrote nicks my car, runs over plod with it, I'm liable for the injuries to plod (yes, yes, I understand that my insurance will pay out).
So, does that mean that scenario (2) would be
scrote burgles my house, steals a knife, stabs plod with knife: I'm liable for the injuries to plod??
I don't care whether my house insurance, or legal protection connected with my house insurance would kick in in scenario (2), I'm bothered about whether the liability arises at all.
If so, then, in either case, I still do not understand why I am liable for injuries caused by a third party using something which was stolen from me. How can I be responsible for the actions of the thief?
If scenario 2 does not create a liability, then why is it different? Why am I liable if someone injures plod using my car, but not with my knife? What is the difference?
What if someone steals money from me (say, a phishing scam, Nigerian lottery, or just a mugging) and then, with that money, they buy a knife, or a car, and use that to injure plod. Am I liable for that?
What about: someone steals my car, sells it, uses the money to buy a gun and shoots plod?
Or: someone steals my car, swaps it with another thief for a different (stolen) car, then runs plod over with the second car?
And someone quoted the RTA earlier in answer to my question - I'm not an expert so could someone who is point me to the bit that explains what I'm liable for other than that which I do, or allow to be done, with my vehicle?
What if I tell someone a really funny joke, and some scrote overhears me and repeats that joke to one his mates while his driving a stolen car, and he finds it so funny he crashes and hits a policeman. Would I be liable? What would happen if I didn't have joke insurance?
edlong as i understand it, from combining my legal knowledge with the press link, the car owner is not liable to the plod his insurance are not indemnifying him. As a price of doing business the insurance co's have to set up, administer and fund the MIB the MIB rules are that if a claim is made against the fund and a particular car is indentified then the insurers of that car deal with the claim. I am asuming that the report is a little inacurate.Like you I cannot see that the car owner has any direct legal liability for what a thief does in his car after it has been nicked.
so we're all getting our gussets uncomfortably bunched due to an inaccurate news story?
Business as usual then.
Well, finally someone says something that makes sense to me! (about this)
Thank you crankboy!
When I had my car stolen it was driven into some other parked cars and damaged them - there was no claim made against my insurance for that damage.
That's not what I said. I never claimed that your insurance would pay for damaged caused by an uninsured driver. Obviously. The clue is in the term "[i]uninsured[/i] driver"
My apologies - I stole the quote from somebody else's post who had interpreted it in that way, without checking on the context. Having done so, I appreciate you didn't mean what I thought was meant by that quote.
cheers 🙂
And another..
No cars were injured this time.
[url] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policewoman-in-norfolk-sues-petrol-station-owner-over-alleged-injuries-she-got-during-a-callout-8555441.html [/url]
I saw that - didn't she trip on a kerb or something?
She should be kicked out for being clumsy and useless.
[i]so we're all getting our gussets uncomfortably bunched due to an inaccurate news story?[/i]
Not just this one, but this too:
[i]The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.
The letter also alleges the business failed to display any warning signs or carry out a risk assessment.[/i]
A curb...
From the BBC article it seems like the Norfolk Police Federation is either backing or supporting her legal action as well. If this is the case, it's pretty shameful.
So - my local council has started switching off street lights to save money. If I now trip on a kerb due to insufficient lighting I suppose I can claim too...
Utter and complete madness.
A Policewoman is now sueing a business for tripping over a kerb saying 'its too high'. However shes also on sickleave for another matter which possibly speaks volumes.
And if you are going to be involved in something 'high-profile', be aware you will be 'investigated'.
Best thing that will happen now is her suspension for bring the force into disrepute - with a speedy conclusion. And for both of them to stop eating pies...