[Closed] Policeman suing car owner

Mildred - I have some sympathy with most of your comments but insurance companies make a lot of money and can afford this? Possibly, but they won't. They'll just pass it through to you and me in our premiums and continue to make a lot of money. That why they make a lot of money.

I think I'd prefer to pay it in tax.

Is it really not an employers liability issue as i assume they expect you to chase criminals - ie they ask you to do this as part of your job and therefor ethey need to cover you and do a risk assesment etc?

Mildred - I have some sympathy with most of your comments but insurance companies make a lot of money and can afford this? Possibly, but they won't. They'll just pass it through to you and me in our premiums and continue to make a lot of money. That why they make a lot of money.
I think I'd prefer to pay it in tax.

This is where I'll display my ignorance; if we accept that the money has to come from somewhere (which I realise some don't accept this, but for the sake of argument...) if our insurance premiums go up then a portion of this finds its way back to the tax man. All that aside, it could also be argued that the insurance industry is better set up to deal with this type of thing (is it not their reason for being?), and the government are basically leaving it to the experts. To set up the infrastructure required within government would be an exercise in burning money.

<checks out shops hiring policemen's uniforms>

It seems reasonable to me that the compensation should come from insurance companies rather than directly from tax for another reason - it means the burden only falls on owners of vehicles rather than all of the population. Now you might argue it's unfair for car owners to have to pay for compensation due to scrotes stealing cars - it's even more unfair for non-car owners to have to pay (the real injustice as always is that those who own cars but don't bother getting insurance don't pay either - but then in general the outlaws always do better).

I'm assuming from the complete missing of the point over the last page that people haven't actually read the sorry the OP linked. The compensation want coming from the MIB, from general premiums. The guy who's car got nicked received a letter that HE was being sued. So, what that means in the end may well be that his insurance pays it, but isn't the issue

WHAT THE MUGGERING BUCK MAKES HIM LIABLE?

There is of course some evidence that police giving chase leads to more road accidents and that the best thing they can do in these situations is back off so a) the policeman brought it on himself and b) by giving chase his actions led to the thief binning it and writing the car off and therefore said policeman should be considered liable for the car being non-recoverable.

Just another take for what it's worth - very little in some people's view I'm sure.

[i]"I received a letter from a solicitor saying he was suing me for personal injuries on behalf of his client... and I later found out this client was a police officer who had been hurt when retrieving my car," he said.[/i]

This is just standard practice but worded to whip up emotions - if you're involved in a bump you're supposed to exchange details at the scene then declare the incident to your insurer. Your insurer would then take up the work on your behalf - this is why there's an extra sum on your insurance for legal expense cover. If you don't have this cover, or the third party has no access to your insurers details, then the letter comes to you. You then pass it on to your insurer, whose legal department or solicitors take it up. It's standard practice.

Now, we don't know very much about the incidents cited but civil law allows up to 6 years to make a claim. It's fairly crap journalism though to make statements like this:

[b]The owners of stolen cars are being sued by some police officers in Northern Ireland who were injured when chasing car thieves.[/b]

Which on 1st glance makes the practice appear common place. It could be just 1 or 2 Police Officers. We just don't know; it's the way the whole piece has been written that has created outrage/emotion/anger. It could well be a couple of incidents that have been written up in this way to have yet another dig. Who knows?

it's the way the whole piece has been written that has created outrage/emotion/anger.

To be fair it does sound like an otherwise rather boring and uninteresting story, by using terms such as "being sued by some police officers" it has generated sufficient outrage and interest to warrant a 2 page thread on a mtb forum.

So well done that journalist - clearly the work of a true professional.......every professional journalist knows that in the absence of actual news, creating news, is vital. Blank pages are NOT an option.

it has generated sufficient outrage and interest to warrant a 2 page thread on a mtb forum.

You're not setting the bar very high there.

I can't imagine setting it any higher.

STW no less.

Mildred, I get that the insurer, not the individual will be settling the liability, but what no one seems to be able to explain is how the heck the liability arises.

Put it another way, what would the position be if it was a stolen, uninsured bike?

...or how about if the knife the scrote stabs the policeman with is one he stole from your kitchen drawer?

Edlong not missing the point just assuming that the details in the report are wrong . I'll bet you that the letter said "we act for pc plod who was injured on a rta involving your vehicle . Our client seeks compensation for his injuries please pass this letter to your insurers who will deal with the matter". In 24 years I have yet to see a press report completely accurately reflect any case I have dealt with they either get the facts wrong the law wrong or both wrong.

*sigh*

I GET THAT THE INSURERS PAY!!!

I don't understand why the liability exists.

Am I losing it, or is that a different point?

I think I understand...

The insurers pay, from a fund set up for the purpose from everybody's premiums. But there's no direct legal route to this, it has to go via the owner of the car, even though it's not his fault (his insurers have accepted liability on his behalf - liability isn't the same as fault). So he gets sued, passes it on to his insurer, if it gets paid it's out of the MIB fund. The bit that seems unfair is that it should reflect on his future premiums (unless he was actually negligent, like leaving the car with the keys in, so it was easy to steal).

[b]mildred[/b], I don't think anyone in this thread has objected to the officer getting compensation from the insurers, just that it shouldn't affect an innocent owner. Many thought it should come from the employers, which you (and I) agree with.

If I can't claim compensation for being badly injured, then why should I continue to do my job?

You shouldn't. If you're injured at work, presumably you, as anyone else, has a right to sue your employer for suitable recompense. If not, then find another means of employ. If all officers do the same, presumably conditions will change? Or is that all rather to Skargill?

I do quite a bit of work in the field. If I were to injure myself, it would be my organisation that paid, not the owner of the field I'm in. The reason I'm in that field doing work is because my employer has sent me there, ergo they are liable. I'm failing to see why this is any different. Your employer sends you out to catch crims (and presumably this didn't come as a surprise to you when you signed up?). Assuming you wouldn't normally be catching crims for the hell of it, I think it's safe to say that you were put in danger through the line of duty of doing your job. Your employers pay to to do that job - your employers should ensure that you're safe, or recompense you if you're not. If that pushes up costs, then throw it at the perp, not the victim (or indirectly everyone else through increased insurance premiums).

You shouldn't. If you're injured at work, presumably you, as anyone else, has a right to sue your employer for suitable recompense. If not, then find another means of employ. If all officers do the same, presumably conditions will change? Or is that all rather to Skargill?

Yup, I sure do but it all depends on the circumstances, and the circumstances are the crucial bit of information we're missing in this story.

Not likely to be too Scargill, being a born & bred Barnsley lad. No conditions will not change - we have no union to help us, we don't have the same employment rights as everyone else; the government have made it very easy to get rid of me, and couldnt care if i did go, so the only loser is me and my family.

The crux of what I'm saying is that although this chap may well be a victim of crime it doesn't preclude him from being held to account in the same way anyone else is. We buy insurance for this reason.

Take an injury on duty as an example. If I was off work for some time I would continue to get paid for a length of time. However, if someone was 'to blame', then my organisation would seek to claim their loss (the wage they've paid me) from whoever that is. I don't necessarily agree with any if this but I do feel that story has been written to stir up particular feelings.

The crux of what I'm saying is that although this chap may well be a victim of crime it doesn't preclude him from being held to account in the same way anyone else is. We buy insurance for this reason.

We buy insurance because:
1) It's a legal necessity
2) To pay for damage to a third party or their property should [b]we[/b] crash into them
3) To pay for damage to [b]our car[/b] should [b]we[/b] crash it, have it stolen, or it bursts into flames

We [b]don't[/b] buy insurance to pay for injuries to someone who was only injured because their employers told them to attempt to apprehend the person who stole the car. Much the same way we don't pay household insurance on the off chance a criminal chooses to attack an officer attending a crime scene with a knife stolen from the house in question.

Why (other than having the temerity to have his possessions stolen by a third party) should he be held to account if the third party crashes them into a policeman? He didn't cause the crash, so how is he to blame?

I do feel that story has been written to stir up particular feelings.

If, instead of insuring their staff properly, the police force is pursuing victims' insurers to cover their costs, then the feeling the article 'stirs up' is quite acceptable. There is no way a person whose car is stolen is 'to blame' for the thief crashing into a policeman, no matter how you dress it up. The only people to blame for that unfortunate sequence of events are the criminal themselves, and the policeman's employer's for putting him in harm's way. As it might be expected that a policeman might end up in harm's way as part of his duties, it seems reasonable that his employers (the police force) should be suitably insured by one means or another to cover any costs that may occur as a result of any harm. That may in turn also mean pursing the criminal for damages.

If I'm in a car crash whilst 'on business', then my employer pays (or pursues the third party if it's them at fault). There is no way in which it would come back to me personally unless I deliberately rammed somebody, and this was proven. Whilst at work, any accidents are work's liability, not mine. The premise being (as I said above) that if I wasn't at work, the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place. It's tough that this appears not to be the case for you with your employers, but frankly that's not my, nor my insurer's problem.

If, instead of insuring their staff properly, the police force is pursuing victims' insurers to cover their costs, then the feeling the article 'stirs up' is quite acceptable.

I'm not sure why this story is causing so much confusion. No police force is pursuing victims' insurers to cover their costs. The story refers to individuals injured by non-insured drivers. The individuals in this case happen to be police officers, but their claim is not being pursued by their police force.

We buy insurance for this reason.

Yup, a reasonable comment imo. We have motor vehicle insurance to deal with the consequences of owning a motor vehicle, which includes consequences associated with theft. If your car is stolen from the front of your house and turns up the next day smashed up 200 miles away illegally parked, then it is your responsibility to deal with the situation, despite the fact that you are not responsible for causing it.

We have to schemes to compensate people who have lost out to criminals the criminal injuries compensation scheme for the victims of violence. That is funded by the taxpayer . And the Motor Insurer's Beauro . That is funded and administered by the motor insurers effectively as a tax / cost of being allowed to trade.

Edlong - the Road Traffic Act is the basis of where this comes from.

We have to schemes to compensate people who have lost out to criminals the criminal injuries compensation scheme for the victims of violence.

To be fair I believe that police officers are the main recipients of that scheme 🙂

Without any request from me, I once got paid compensation for being kicked in the nuts by a prostitute. Apparently, according to the magistrate, my family jewels are worth £25. I only ever received £15 because that's all she could afford. She was quite low rent.

Why (other than having the temerity to have his possessions stolen by a third party) should he be held to account if the third party crashes them into a policeman? He didn't cause the crash, so how is he to blame?

I've been giving examples of an alternative view that hadn't been considered prior to my first post, not claiming this to be the case on this specific occasion. That said, neither you not I know the circumstances of that reported. [b]You[/b] cannot assume he was not accountable in any way from what is written in that piece. [b]You[/b] don't know whether he did cause the crash. He probably didn't, but you don't know this.

A lot of folk over in Northern Ireland think they are American, so look to America as role models . A brief history lesson is needed.
1, You are English
2, England Invented America
3,America is only a few years old
to conter this an Irish Buisness woman said" America was built by the Irish ,true i said you built it for us"(The english)
The policeman is just being wise (an old Irish saying meaning cheeky /smart)they all do this push the boundries of lazyness/****ness
DISCLAIMER: SOME OR ALL OF THIS MAY NOT OR MAYBE TRUE
i used to Live in LONDONderry so i have some expierence of the natives

You don't know whether he did cause the crash. He probably didn't, but you don't know this.

Unless he somehow stole his own car, I'm struggling to come up with any plausible scenarios as to how he could be at fault.

We have motor vehicle insurance to deal with the consequences of owning a motor vehicle, which includes consequences associated with theft.

I have household insurance to deal with the consequences of owning a knife. I very much doubt, however, that it would be called upon to compensate a policeman for a wound sustained from said knife when wielded by a would-be thief.

I'm with others on here and am finding it difficult to see.

[i]Not likely to be too Scargill, being a born & bred Barnsley lad. No conditions will not change - we have no union to help us, we don't have the same employment rights as everyone else; the government have made it very easy to get rid of me, and couldnt care if i did go, so the only loser is me and my family.[/i]

No, but you have (and continue to) be well looked after by this and all Govt's since Thatcher - from pay and conditions through to pensions - its a different world to the rest of us. Or maybe you've no idea of the working conditions of the rest of us?

my 2pence - Why should anyone in an official capacity working on behlf of the state have the right to sue privately for actions caused during their working day/carrying out their job? It doesn't happen in the armed forces, so why with plod forces? You decide to take up a potentially dangerous occupation and you therefore accept the risks that go with it. The MIB should in no way be approached by the profiessianl services for this kind of incident, public yes. Any claim should be born under Plods liability cover / self cover.

The compensation want coming from the MIB, from general premiums

If your car is stolen from the front of your house and turns up the next day smashed up 200 miles away illegally parked, then it is your responsibility to deal with the situation, despite the fact that you are not responsible for causing it.

Any claim should be born under Plods liability cover / self cover

A lot of folk over in Northern Ireland think they are American, so look to America as role models . A brief history lesson is needed.
1, You are [b]English[/b]
2, England Invented America
3,America is only a few years old
DISCLAIMER: SOME OR ALL OF THIS MAY NOT OR MAYBE TRUE
i used to Live in LONDONderry so i have some expierence of the natives

OMG, Wars have started over less - presumably you had an armed escort to get you our of Derry and back to your homeland when you left.

which would appear to be none existent

And that's everyone else's fault?

I'm sure it's not "non-existent", but Plod management are likely being bell ends in allowing their own troops to access it. Like the army (sorry), i'm sure Plod do self insure due to the nature of the business, personal accidents (but also on the job) are/woould be covered under private insurance through companies like PAX. Plod management have a duty of care especially when injuries are recieved on the job, it's not the vicitims, and when i say victims all of us that provide insurance, fault.

edit to add, private insurance is an added extra to make up for percieved shortfalls.

And that's everyone else's fault?

*wishy washily phrased coz I don't know all the facts and probably haven't thought this all thru (as per)

Exactly! A double whammy for the miscreant, gets his collar felt & then has to cough up for the injuries he's caused.

i'm sure Plod do self insure

eggsactly. I'm fairly sure the police aren't exempt from the normal laws regarding their employees - if it's an injury sustained in the course of your work the you are entitled to claim compensation from your employer. The fact normal companies will have insurance to cover this doesn't change where the liability falls (it's a common misconception of insurance - it insures the employer against claims made against it rather than the employees).

We have motor vehicle insurance to deal with the consequences of owning a motor vehicle, which includes consequences associated with theft.

Actually no. That's another misconception. The insurance will cover you for an incident where you would normally have liability, which does include stuff like the handbrake failing and it rolling down a hill when parked and unattended - that is after all your responsibility. 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.

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.