Policeman suing car owner

From BBC N. Ireland

Should I start claiming from patients who coughed and gave me a chest infection? Seems a bit odd and smacks of a bright spark solicitor spotting a potential money spinner.

Or am I just being cynical 8)

What next?

Firemen suing homeowners because they got burned putting a fire out?

April 1st?

No, 21st Century UK – So if he wins, I wonder how many more times he’ll do it?

Arkell v. Pressdram springs to mind.
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm

Why would it stop at car theft? There must be loads of things cops do with the potential for injury. The world has gone well and truly bonkers.

If only it were that simple Ian………..

Counter sue for damage to the car caused by the police pursuing?

Quite.

Interesting. I’m no car insurance expert but it seems odd that cover would be in place in this circumstance.

It seems right to me that the Policeman should be able to recover his loses from someone – but perhaps better his employer.

Easy to criticise but what would you do if say paralysed and penniless after an incident like this?

kristidavis

I’m assuming English is not your first language or you’re using siri but I get the gist of your comment………I think ❓

One thing is certain – if successful it’s yet another thing which will put up premiums.

Al – I stand to be corrected but police are covered for this type of thing, aren’t they? Surely if a case such as this was to be pursued, it should be against the employer, or taken out by the employer on behalf of the employee?

Counter sue for damage to the car caused by the police pursuing?

SPOT! F*! ON!

edit: Occupational hazard surely? Its a bit like a soldier suing the army for being shot by the enemy…

He said that police officers, like any individual, could decide to pursue a claim through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) if they were in a crash where the driver of the other vehicle was at fault and could not be traced or was not insured.

From the article, so it’s traffic incident related. Sounds to me like he’s abusing the scheme, I’m sure it wasn’t intended to cover police chases in this context.

Easy to criticise but what would you do if say paralysed and penniless after an incident like this?

But as a Policeman he’d be under employers cover, therefore payoff and pension.

It seems right to me that the Policeman should be able to recover his loses from someone – but perhaps better his employer.

Absolutely better from their employer. Why should an entirely innocent party have to pay? The claims here are every bit as bad as the ‘criminals’ stealing the cars in the first place. It’s an opportunist theft.

Taking it a stage further……………as an example, if a householder disturbs a burglar and said burglar used an item stolen eg. knife/gun/shovel to injure an arresting officer, would the householder then be potentially be liable for injuries caused by his stolen property?

Edit: I suppose he would potentially, if the gun had not been properly stored/locked away.

kristidavis

I’m assuming English is not your first language or you’re using siri but I get the gist of your comment………I think

Has a post been removed??

Has a post been removed??

Yes. Bit of opportunistic spamming quickly spotted.

Easy to criticise but what would you do if say paralysed and penniless after an incident like this?

I’d say something like: “I knew what I was doing when I chose to be a police officer instead of becoming a farmer/plumber/lapdancer – so I’m going to accept the professional risk I took, and the consequences”

I must be getting senile, but I simply cannot see on what basis the owner of the car would or could be liable for the injuries, nor how there could be a claim against the owner’s car insurance, since the insurance would only cover the insured and any named driver?

I suppose, if the car was insured for “any driver” then maybe, but even then, surely it only covers any driver with the insured’s consent, which wouldn’t apply here?

Any legal “experts” (in the STW sense of the word) able to shed light on this?

What would happen if I saw a burglar leaving my neighbour’s property, gave a description to the police, who recognised them from the description and were then injured while making an arrest? Would I be liable for the injury to plod? The neighbour who was burgled?

Seriously, I just simply do not understand the basis for this. It does not make any sense at all.

Well you can sue anyone for anything, until it gets to court you don’t definitively know if you have a good case or not.

mrlebowski – Member
Counter sue for damage to the car caused by the police pursuing?
SPOT! F*! ON!

edit: Occupational hazard surely? Its a bit like a soldier suing the army for being shot by the enemy…

Isn’t it more like a soldier suing the entire public for being shot by the enemy, after all they’re defending all our freedom.

would be interesting to know, given that PSNI don’t seem to know/care about all this, whether said officers have been working after sustaining their injuries?

butcher – Member

It seems right to me that the Policeman should be able to recover his loses from someone – but perhaps better his employer.

Absolutely better from their employer. Why should an entirely innocent party have to pay?

It’s the insurers that will pay, the insured to a much lesser extent.

i think it is something to do with the MIB rules that pay out for personal injuries caused by uninsured drivers . where the driver can’t be traced or is uninsured but the car is, then the injured parties claim is met by the insurers of the car involved. who may then seek to reciver from the driver if traced. So it is nothing to do with the car owner it is a cllaim paid by the Insurers under the scheme in their capacity as a company rather than under the policy with the owner. Top of the head answer based on memory will bow to specific knowledge.

That sounds like a feasible answer, but if so, based on the news report, if the insurer is paying out, but not in connection with the driver’s policy, why would it then affect the driver’s future premiums?

There’s still something I’m not getting, isn’t there?

crankboy if in a similar stolen car scenario a 3rd party totally uninvolved (eg pedestrian) gets hurt, do they claim against the car owner or do they have to claim from the uninsured drivers pot (can’t remember what it’s called)?

Al – I stand to be corrected but police are covered for this type of thing, aren’t they? Surely if a case such as this was to be pursued, it should be against the employer, or taken out by the employer on behalf of the employee?

About £12m pa it seems at the mo, against Joe Public’s insurance…

For your information, and to put a slightly different angle on this but no, Police officers are not covered by their employer for injuries sustained on duty. From personal experience, you’re basically on your own.

Without wishing to open up the debate here, the Police Authority, or Crime Commisioner invests nothing whatsoever in the health or well-being of their staff. Many have screening processes to ensure they’re fit for operational duty on their recovery, but there is nothing in place to compensate injury other than what you or anybody else has.

Given the Conservatives gave spent the past few years telling us all the Office of Constable is not unique in any way, nor more dangerous than any other profession. And bearing in mind they have eroded pay and conditions to suit this idea, Officers are now left in a position where they stand to lose their jobs for prolonged illness, whether injury on duty or not – there is no distinction. The Conservatives desire to get rid of Officers from back room roles, most of which are necessary jobs that someone’s going to have to do (and usually benefit from knowledge and experience), we’re now in the position where an Officer injured on duty, unless he can pass the medical and fitness tests, will lose their job and pension rights. Is that fair?

Look at it from a different angle – YOU as tax payers have paid for this officers training. You all have a specific investment in his or hers employment. For the government to discard this investment in a loony catch-all policy seems ludicrous. And on that topic – a percentage of all our insurance is for this type of claim. Insurance companies make A LOT of money and can afford this. In contrast, if the Police were to compensate their own staff for every minor niggle and major injury sustained by Officers on duty, then that would potentially load your council tax to a far greater degree than a few quid on top of you annual insurance premium.

Just a thought like.

Some interesting figures on compensation from my neck of the woods HERE

Presumably, mildred, if you’re going to get injured on duty you want it to happen when chasing a stolen car where there’s an insurance company you can claim from rather than when trying to arrest a scrote with a knife on the street?

Woody – Member

Some interesting figures on compensation from my neck of the woods HERE

Presumably though those payouts are due to some negligence by the Police Authority rather than I’ve been injured give me some cash, Rathband was suing because of what he believed to be mistakes that led to his injuries rather than just the fact he was injured. When I was a motorcyclist for HMC&E we were told if we came off we would get no compensation or assistance from HMC&E despite being expected to make ground, etc in traffic as part of the role

Presumably though those payouts are due to some negligence by the Police Authority

Yes but there are also car crash claims and dog bites in there, which I would have thought were more consistent with ‘in the line of duty’.

Yes but there are also car crash claims and dog bites in there, which I would have thought were more consistent with ‘in the line of duty’.

Depends if you’re bitten by a police dog which someone has failed to control properly despite there being clear protocols it’s not in the line of duty, if you’re injured because a critical piece of your car’s brakes has been glued in place by the workshop rather than fixed correctly it’s not in the line of duty, if the person driving you at high speed hasn’t been adequately trained and bin’s it – it’s probably not your fault and again it’s arguable it’snot in the line of duty – it’s a failure by your employers in allowing someone to do something they are not competent to do. There’s possibly more to it all than is in the reporting

Thank you for your input mildred.

Very interesting too.

However, it doesnt change the fact that suing the owner of the car isn’t the proper course of action.

Whichever way you slice this its distasteful…

Isn’t it fairly common now for the police/fire/ambulance services to claim costs from the insured. When that is the system, this seems no more than the next logical extension.

Insurance companies make A LOT of money and can afford this

They won’t make any less money because of this, it will cost us all more from increased premiums than if it was paid from tax.

However, it doesnt change the fact that suing the owner of the car isn’t the proper course of action.

If you read the paragraphs towards the end of the link it explains the point which crankboy made :

He said that police officers, like any individual, could decide to pursue a claim through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) if they were in a crash where the driver of the other vehicle was at fault and could not be traced or was not insured.

“When claims against the MIB are settled, the MIB can seek to recover the cost incurred from the actual party at fault, i.e. the person who stole and was driving the vehicle,” he said.

“In reality this probably seldom happens as car thieves do not generally have the financial assets to repay what MIB have had to pay out in damages and costs.

“It is a matter between the person who insures the vehicle and the insurance company as to whether or not in the event of their vehicle being stolen and involved in a collision, the insurance company will treat that incident as a claim under their policy.”

That ^^ last paragraph sums it up, which, along with mildred’s comment, makes it a reasonable course of action in my opinion. Although a more acceptable solution of course would be for the police authorities to accept responsibility.

I can honestly say that it doesn’t enter your mind at that point. Well, i say this but it does seem that the more recently recruited officers have had all their ‘hands on’ genes removed once they leave training school. This is a whole issue in itself but in conjunction with a big rise in complaints against the Police (ironically geared towards compensation…), were seeing an increase in the number of risk averse officers. From a practical point of view, the number of incidents where it is necessary to get ‘hands on’ doesn’t really decrease whereas the number of Officers willing to get hands on does. This means that complaints are gradually becoming clustered around certain individuals or even groups of officers – a growing problem in my eyes.

I’m perhaps better equipped to deal with a ‘scrote with a knife’ but ive never actually felt that threatened in that situation. However, one of the worst injuries I’ve had was trying to arrest a car thief. He drove his stolen post office van straight at me. I jumped down a ditch to avoid getting killed and badly sprained my ankle. Now I have constant problems with it. I’m told by the Orthopedic consultant that I should consider my right ankle to be 10 years older than the left. I’m told I will have problems with it for the rest of my life. Is that fair? Should I have risk assessed it and ignored the stolen car? Would you as a tax payer expect that? This vehicle had been outstanding for 2 years and was involved in multiple crimes; countless victims out there would quite rightly have a fair grievance with the Police had I ignored this vehicle. That I might get injured never even entered my head, but it’s often in my head now – every cold morning as I limp around warming it up. Now, should I have got any compensation for my injury or not? If so, how should that be paid, from whom should it come? Somebody would have to pay it – who? The insurance company or the tax payer?

If you don’t think I should be compensated – why not? If I can’t claim compensation for being badly injured, then why should I continue to do my job? Especially now my employer can get rid of me if I can’t pass my fitness test. The money ain’t good enough to get routinely injured and continue with a normal life; the intrinsic rewards of locking up baddies only gets you so far; my eventual pension has been hammered down around £30-40k less than I signed up for, despite me working longer and paying in more money; they will now withhold my pension until I’m 65, meanin 23 years tryin to gain/maintain employment whilst carrying an injury. There’s a bigger picture to this and I’d be wary of being too judgmental without the full fact about this incident.

There’s possibly more to it all than is in the reporting

Of course but as the authorities are unwilling or unable to divulge the facts, it will always be open to conjecture.

Not read all of this, but if there are grounds for the police to claim against anyone, surely it is the person stealing the car. There has been no negligence on the part of the car owner, so I cannot see how they could be held legally responsible when someone has taken the car without the owner’s permission.

I am also not sure why I owuld be liable for whata thief does with my illegally acquired car or why they would sue me tbh

Fair point mildred but I think aspects of it reflect the claim culture which has permeated all aspects of society even those who uphold the law.
FWIW France has 3% whiplash claims in an accident we have 75% – there is also an aspect of folk milking the system for what they can get which no one supports.
hard to say which is which in this case but I think your claim would be legitimate but I assume it would be done via your employer [ or victim of crime comensation] rather than through the innocent victim of crime.

If you don’t think I should be compensated – why not?

I never said you shouldnt be compensated, I just thinks its wrong to sue the victim. Really wrong…

However, as has been said, Im sure theres wayyy more to this story than we know.

edit:

but if there are grounds for the police to claim against anyone, surely it is the person stealing the car.

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

I proclaim COMMON SENSE the winner!

HUZZAH!!!