Forum menu
Hypothetical situation based on a real one (not involving me).
Two vehicles are involved in a collision. Vehicle A is 100% at fault, simply didn't see vehicle B, and admits it.
Vehicle B, however, was driving without insurance.
Who's at fault from a legal standpoint? Who's liable for paying for repairs, and to whom?
I'll explain why I'm asking in a little while, just interested to hear people's Armchair Lawyer interpretations.
A is legally to blame
B gets done for no insurance
Waits for an informed opinion to see if my guess is correct.
Vehicle A's insurer pays but can try to recover costs/etc from the uninsured driver or MIB? Driver B should NOT have even been on the road/in that situation so in my view B is a ****ing ****er.
Where did Will Smith enter the scenario?
Hmmmm, just guessing but A is responsible for the damage.
Whether B wants to pursue the damages is another question as I'd imagine then 'A' would get the Police involved.
I suspect the insurer of A will do all they can to avoid paying for B's repairs - good chance of being successful. Insurer will pay for A's repairs. Police should prosecute B but that will require someone to report him/her.
shirley B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus. Therefore B is at fault and A can own B with bombers with no reprisals!
B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus
A tad extreme but, if a child's in the motorway I'm cool to gun it? I mean, they shouldn't have been there so it's all good, right?
shirley B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus. Therefore B is at fault and A can own B with bombers with no reprisals!
+1
There is no comparison between a child on the motorway and a uninsure car driver. You would expect the driver of the uninsured car to be "legally competent" (no doubt a much better term is available)) and know they shouldn't be on the road, a child on the motorway is not in the same position.
I think its unrealistic to claim you can do as you please to an uninsured driver claiming its always their fault as they should not have been there.
The main problem is the HC still applies to your driving irrespective of their insurance status. Furthermore no one can tell by looking who is and who is not insured.
WhyTF are we even discussing this?
Junkyard got it first time and I'm rather concerned anyone who thinks otherwise would be allowed behind the wheel!
WhyTF are we even discussing this?
Because it's interesting. Quiet in the peanut gallery.
(I'll explain after lunch.)
I meant the I can do what I like to an uninsured driver [ and they will be to blame] argument and not the topic in general.
I reckon you are driver A.
LUNCH have you become a southerner or something and dinner time ended 40 minutes ago 😉
(not involving me).
Right, ok. I'm presenting details as explained, I have no means of verifying their veracity so for the purposes of the discussion please just take it at face value and don't shoot the messenger.
A mate of mine was the driver of vehicle B in the original scenario. He was unintentionally driving without insurance (the policy had been cancelled by his insurers the day before and he'd not yet received the notification letter) and got sideswiped by a truck drifting over from an adjacent lane in some narrowed-lane roadworks. The truck driver accepted full responsibility to the police.
I've had a think, and my reasoning is as follows:
We've got two separate incidents here, which confuses the situation.
Point the first, in a 100%-fault accident the at-fault driver's insurance would be liable for both vehicles (less any excess). Whether matey had insurance or not is academic for the purposes of a claim as there wouldn't be any liability on him or his insurer anyway.
The second offence is driving without insurance, a separate offence for which he should've been fined / endorsed accordingly.
But, this isn't what happened. The police said my mate was at fault because without insurance he shouldn't have been on the road to run in to in the first place, and the court later agreed and he was held liable for damage to the lorry (as well as the IN10 penalty). I'm not sure if he had to pay for his own repairs too, I forgot to ask.
This seems somewhat crazy to me; it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'. Which is why I thought I'd ask here, I don't actually know what the procedure would be in this case and wondered whether he'd had his pants pulled down or whether that's just the way it worked.
it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.
Nowt wrong with that in my book, why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't? It's hardly like we know who is legal, and who isn't... so how is it carte blanche when you can't 'target them'?
Terrible situation for your m8, I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance.
Any chance of a link to a court report or similar? Having recently been "Driver A" I'd be very interested, as my insurance didn't take this view...
why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't?
If the "legal" person had followed the laws/rules they would not have hit them so both have broken the rules.
Interesting decision. I wonder what the official guidance is
Accidents are not the same as following the rules, accidents happen (inattention/distraction), ignoring a legal procedure to be on the road (insurance/tax/mot) is not. You can't have been distracted into not getting insurance.
you're not the only oneThis seems somewhat crazy to me;
pretty much. But as a cyclist it should come as no great surprise that courts will do pretty much anything to let off a driver who is insured, has a licence and isn't pissed, break one of those and you're on the naughty step, keep within those and yeah carte blanche pretty much covers it. If your mate had insurance obviously driver A would unfortunately have been held liable for the highly regrettable accidentit implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.
I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance.
Well, my experience is that they don't believe in "honest mistakes."
I had one years ago, got stopped on a random police check, transpired that it fell during a 20 minute gap between two insurance policies I believed were concurrent. "Not a court in the land would convict me!" I thought as a naive 25-year old. 90 quid and six points, that was.
as a cyclist it should come as no great surprise
Amusingly enough, that's where this conversation started.
I think this may be the mindset of jurors that allow so many not guilty verdicts after a driver mows down yet another innocent party. [i]just a bit of inattention innit? nowt serious.[/i]Accidents are not the same as following the rules, accidents happen (inattention/distraction), ignoring a legal procedure to be on the road (insurance/tax/mot) is not.
I agree with your general point about legalities but disagree with the subsequent "anything goes"
<edit>and no, in general, accidents don't "just happen"
Any chance of a link to a court report or similar?
I've no idea if such a thing is available, even. I could ask I guess.
I think this may be the mindset of jurors that allows so many not guilty verdicts after a driver mows down another innocent party. just a bit of innatention innit? nowt serious.
"... there but for the grace of god go I"
Curious and possibly confused . There has been a change in criminal law to causing death while uninsured which at one point followed the if you ain't insured you should not be there so its your fault regardless line of argument but the higher courts have rowed back from that point recently .
I'd have gone with driver a's careless act caused the accident driver a liable myself.
Sounds fair to me. If your car/you aren't legal on the road you shouldn't be there. Had your mate been drink driving the result is the same as having no insurance, he's in the wrong (maybe unbeknownst to him so hopefully a bit of leniency his way)
As a former claims manager for an insurance company, I would [i]really[/i] like to see the court report on that decision.
I can't see how civil liability for the accident bears any connection to the criminal IN10 offence and vice versa.
Your post implies that there was a court case for both the IN10 and the accident. That suggests to me that your mate got done for careless driving as well as the IN10? The civil (liability) and criminal cases would be separate courts, not combined.
Think there must be some information that has got lost at some point in the saga
but disagree with the "anything goes" follow on.
TBH, so do I which is why I posted
"I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance."
It's not we phone our insurance companies every day just to check everything's ok.
Did it ever go before a jury? You know, proper lawyers and that. I think your mate needs to check with a brief who's up to speed on roads stuff.
I'd have guessed at driver A's insurer paying for the damage to Driver A's car only and driver B having to pay out of his own pocket. Looks like I would be wrong.
Why was driver B's policy cancelled? Might be pertinent as to how sorry I feel for him. I can't envisage a situation where a company could cancel your policy without you having done something wrong.
hmm if you're over the legal limit stopped waiting at some lights and some nobber runs into the back of you due to distraction/inattention then I think in a sane world the correct procedure would be nobber pays up full insurance and possibly gets his collar felt for driving like a dick and you get banned for drink driving. Don't see why nobber "gets away" with causing a collision.Had your mate been drink driving the result is the same as having no insurance, he's in the wrong
accidents happen (inattention/distraction),
Driving without due care and attention is an offence and not an "accident".
You can have been distracted into not getting insurance.
Cougar gave an example of an honest mistake or "distraction".
You can argue they are different if you wish but i am not going to agree
Sounds fair to me. If your car/you aren't legal on the road you shouldn't be there
30 zone I do 100 mph into a uninsured car whilst on the wrong side of the road
Still there fault?
It makes no sense to decide the blame of the accident on a fact that had no direct bearing on the causes of the accident .
Bank or Ins Co cocked up a Direct Debit, for one.
(edit) [i]where a company could cancel your policy with you having done something wrong.[/i]
A few years back I inadvertently drove without insurance for several months, only finding out when I tried to renew the (cancelled) policy. My "insurers" at the time admitted they had made a mistake and claimed that they would therefore have covered me if I'd been involved in an accident. If Cougar's mate's story is true it sounds like I'd have been committing an offence whether they accepted a claim or not. Until now I'd have been with Cougar in the "not a court in the land" party but now I'm not so sure!
Hmmm this is your post that I was referring to.but disagree with the "anything goes" follow on.TBH, so do I which is why I posted...
it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.Nowt wrong with that in my book
As johnners here, long time ago.
How come his insurance was cancelled?
Anyway, the court decision doesn't really make sense to me. The lorry caused the incident, had your mate not been there it would have been someone else and their insurance would have paid out.
This is a quote about the case I had in mind in my double posts above.
"Another controversial aspect of the offence is that it did not appear at first to require any fault on the part of the uninsured driver. Therefore, if an uninsured motorist for example, driving otherwise faultlessly and under the speed limit, happens to be crashed into by a second motorist, driving erratically on the wrong side of the road, under the influence of both heroin and alcohol and having worked a number of lengthy shifts at work, that first driver is guilty of the homicide offence regardless of the fact that the accident was clearly the fault of the second. Those were the facts of the case of Hughes where the Court of Appeal ruled that the first driver was guilty of the offence despite the blameless nature of their driving. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that there had to be some element of fault in the driving; not necessarily enough to amount to careless driving but there did have to be some element of blameworthiness about it. That changed the law."
But this is criminal liability for a fatal incident not civil liability for damages arising.
Donk, Still agree with you (I think), but my point would be an accident with a illegally driven vehicle, blame should still be initially pointed at the illegal vehicle.. then other factor taken into account.
You can argue they are different if you wish but i am not going to agree
JY, I don't have to argue, this is why we have insurance, and don't end up in court every time we have an accident. Making up scenarios where your doing something illegal, and using the uninsured option as get out of jail card, is just sad. No one thinks that is what would happen or expects it to.
Think there must be some information that has got lost at some point in the saga
Almost certainly, TBH.
Why was driver B's policy cancelled? Might be pertinent as to how sorry I feel for him.
Some sort of mix-up over payment IIRC. How much of that was directly his fault or that of the bank I couldn't say.
@Cougar, very interesting and a bit strange which is why I imagine you posted it in the first place. I have to say if I where B I would be pretty hacked off to be paying for the lorry's damage and get nothing for my own damage. A fine/points yes but to pay for the lorry that's seems very bizzare ?
@Cougar, very interesting and a bit strange which is why I imagine you posted it in the first place.
Exactly. I wasn't looking for legal advice or sympathy, just that I'm generally pretty good with stuff like this and was surprised at the outcome.
How come his insurance was cancelled?
Just got more info on this.
[i]DD due 5th of month, money went in 4th. DD was presented 3rd. bounced, at 1138am, insurance cancelled. I was [away], tried to go home got plowed. police checked insurance, arrested me, sent him on way.[/i]
Your post implies that there was a court case for both the IN10 and the accident. That suggests to me that your mate got done for careless driving as well as the IN10? The civil (liability) and criminal cases would be separate courts, not combined.
[i]ok. Criminal IN10, I contested,explained the situation, judge said tough, your fault
...
straight on the back of that, truck insurance co sued me in civil court for repair costs, pointing out police hadn't even warned the driver of the truck, I contested, lost.
...
basically they were keeping tabs on the IN10 case and used it against me.
...
I tried to take on [insurance company], they denied it, bank were unelpful and ombudsman couldn't rule in my favour cos bank weren't helping with exact info.[/i]