Legal (ish) advice/help

[martinlumley]

Hate to throw cold water on this, but when you make a claim against someone after an accident, you are doing so on the grounds that they acted negligently . Therefor unless it can be proved that the deceased party had been advised not to drive, or that they would have had reasonable grounds to suspect that they were suffering from a condition where loss of consciousness and or death were highly likely negligence simply did not occur.

But surely an accident is just that, an accidental collision. Why does one party have to have been negligent ( and need it to be proved )?

 

[Jonny Ringo]

Hate to throw cold water on this, but when you make a claim against someone after an accident, you are doing so on the grounds that they acted negligently . Therefor unless it can be proved that the deceased party had been advised not to drive, or that they would have had reasonable grounds to suspect that they were suffering from a condition where loss of consciousness and or death were highly likely negligence simply did not occur.

The correct answer. No blame, no claim.

But surely an accident is just that, an accidental collision. Why does one party have to have been negligent ( and need it to be proved )?

Because in law, to make a claim against another person for loss or damage in negligence you have to prove that you were injured and this was caused by their breach of duty of care. If all of these elements aren't present then they aren't liable to you and if they aren't liable their insurer won't indemnify the claim. Not every accident contains fault.

 

[haway]

The correct answer. No blame, no claim.


Because in law, to make a claim against another person for loss or damage in negligence you have to prove that you were injured and this was caused by their breach of duty of care. If all of these elements aren't present then they aren't liable to you and if they aren't liable their insurer won't indemnify the claim. Not every accident contains fault.

I think you're wrong here.

Because what you're saying implies that someone is only able to make a claim against someone else's insurance if the other party acted negligently. But someone can be responsible for a crash but not have acted negligently. My understanding is that when deciding who is responsible for a car crash it comes down to balance of probabilities of who was most to "blame" for the crash. Now if you have a situation where someone has driven into oncoming traffic as a result of death, they may not have acted negligently or done anything wrong but they are still responsible for the crash and thus would be "blamed".

What you're saying would suggest that were I to be driving and to have a sneezing fit (which I'd never had before) and it caused me to crash the car, no-one could make a claim against my insurance. It would also imply that were I to black out (again, having never done so before) that no-one could make a claim etc etc etc. But this isn't the case. My understanding is that the entire way motor insurance was drafted was so that these situations would be avoided (e.g. someone having a crash that wasn't their fault and not being able to make a claim).

So I don't think the threshold for motor accidents is breach of duty of care. Or if it is, it's interpreted completely different to the duty of care you'd have when making claims against a negligent doctor or whatever.

Bottom line is I think you can be held responsible for a car crash even when you haven't acted negligently whatsoever - because you can be responsible for harm even when you've done everything correct - and in those cases your insurer should still pay out. @Vinny the Mackem - thoughts?

 

[Mackem00]

How can they possibly know he was dead before the impact. Complete bollocks.

This. He died at 09:59:12 and not a second later!

 

[Deleted member 4700]

Hate to throw cold water on this, but when you make a claim against someone after an accident, you are doing so on the grounds that they acted negligently . Therefor unless it can be proved that the deceased party had been advised not to drive, or that they would have had reasonable grounds to suspect that they were suffering from a condition where loss of consciousness and or death were highly likely negligence simply did not occur.

He caused the accident through him not being in control of the car. See Exhibit A
His car was out of control as it was now a driverless car then hit a car head on. See Exhibit B

Exhibit A: Dead Driver
Exhibit B: Driverless car

 

[maghater]

But surely an accident is just that, an accidental collision. Why does one party have to have been negligent ( and need it to be proved )?

If neither party is negligent (or both parties are equally to blame) then the claim is usually settled on a knock for knock basis, i.e. both parties pick up their own tab. OK if you are fully comp (apart from it buggering up your no claims) but you are shafted if you are only third party.

 

[haway]

If neither party is negligent (or both parties are equally to blame) then the claim is usually settled on a knock for knock basis, i.e. both parties pick up their own tab. OK if you are fully comp (apart from it buggering up your no claims) but you are shafted if you are only third party.

That's not true though. A party can be deemed responsible for a car accident without being negligent. E.g. I'm driving a car and my 6 year old child hits be over the head for a joke and I swerve into a car. No-one could argue I had acted negligently but I'm 100% responsible for the crash.

 

[Vinny the Mackem]

I think you're wrong here.

Because what you're saying implies that someone is only able to make a claim against someone else's insurance if the other party acted negligently. But someone can be responsible for a crash but not have acted negligently. My understanding is that when deciding who is responsible for a car crash it comes down to balance of probabilities of who was most to "blame" for the crash. Now if you have a situation where someone has driven into oncoming traffic as a result of death, they may not have acted negligently or done anything wrong but they are still responsible for the crash and thus would be "blamed".

What you're saying would suggest that were I to be driving and to have a sneezing fit (which I'd never had before) and it caused me to crash the car, no-one could make a claim against my insurance. It would also imply that were I to black out (again, having never done so before) that no-one could make a claim etc etc etc. But this isn't the case. My understanding is that the entire way motor insurance was drafted was so that these situations would be avoided (e.g. someone having a crash that wasn't their fault and not being able to make a claim).

So I don't think the threshold for motor accidents is breach of duty of care. Or if it is, it's interpreted completely different to the duty of care you'd have when making claims against a negligent doctor or whatever.

Bottom line is I think you can be held responsible for a car crash even when you haven't acted negligently whatsoever - because you can be responsible for harm even when you've done everything correct - and in those cases your insurer should still pay out. @Vinny the Mackem - thoughts?

Insurance isn't really my game, but if the deceased driver's insurance company is correct in their position then the non dead driver's insurance should be picking up the tab.

It sounds like two insurance companies having a pissing contest. I think the OP might be worth speaking to his insurance company to see if they can issue, at the very least, an interim payment.

 

[Jonny Ringo]

I think you're wrong here.

Because what you're saying implies that someone is only able to make a claim against someone else's insurance if the other party acted negligently. But someone can be responsible for a crash but not have acted negligently. My understanding is that when deciding who is responsible for a car crash it comes down to balance of probabilities of who was most to "blame" for the crash. Now if you have a situation where someone has driven into oncoming traffic as a result of death, they may not have acted negligently or done anything wrong but they are still responsible for the crash and thus would be "blamed".

What you're saying would suggest that were I to be driving and to have a sneezing fit (which I'd never had before) and it caused me to crash the car, no-one could make a claim against my insurance. It would also imply that were I to black out (again, having never done so before) that no-one could make a claim etc etc etc. But this isn't the case. My understanding is that the entire way motor insurance was drafted was so that these situations would be avoided (e.g. someone having a crash that wasn't their fault and not being able to make a claim).

So I don't think the threshold for motor accidents is breach of duty of care. Or if it is, it's interpreted completely different to the duty of care you'd have when making claims against a negligent doctor or whatever.

Bottom line is I think you can be held responsible for a car crash even when you haven't acted negligently whatsoever - because you can be responsible for harm even when you've done everything correct - and in those cases your insurer should still pay out. @Vinny the Mackem - thoughts?

I am a solicitor and specialise in civil litigation. I usually have a caseload of around thirty personal injury files, including RTAs. What I am saying is correct, believe me.

If nobody is at fault or, more pertinently, you cannot prove someone else is at fault, that is why you have your own insurance policy to cover your insured losses, such as vehicular damage. Any uninsured losses, for example injury or loss of earnings, requires you to prove negligence against the other party. If you can't do that your claim fails.

 

[martinlumley]

I am a solicitor and specialise in civil litigation. I usually have a caseload of around thirty personal injury files, including RTAs. What I am saying is correct, believe me.

If nobody is at fault or, more pertinently, you cannot prove someone else is at fault, that is why you have your own insurance policy to cover your insured losses, such as vehicular damage. Any uninsured losses, for example injury or loss of earnings, requires you to prove negligence against the other party. If you can't do that your claim fails.

So has OP'S sister in law got no chance of getting anything? Seems very unfair on her.

 

[Jonny Ringo]

So has OP'S sister in law got no chance of getting anything? Seems very unfair on her.

I'd have to know more about the case but in theory if someone died instantaneously and without warning there may not be a claim. The question for me would be whether there was a pre-existing condition that made it unsafe for the driver to be behind the wheel. This could have been something longstanding or it could be whether he was feeling unwell in the days, hours or minutes before the accident and should have pulled over. If the solicitor hasn't already done so he needs to get hold of a copy of the pathologist and police reports and the coroner's judgment.

 

[Typhoonftm]

I am a solicitor and specialise in civil litigation. I usually have a caseload of around thirty personal injury files, including RTAs. What I am saying is correct, believe me.

If nobody is at fault or, more pertinently, you cannot prove someone else is at fault, that is why you have your own insurance policy to cover your insured losses, such as vehicular damage. Any uninsured losses, for example injury or loss of earnings, requires you to prove negligence against the other party. If you can't do that your claim fails.

You're not a shitehawk ambulance chaser for Winns are you?

 

[Jonny Ringo]

You're not a shitehawk ambulance chaser for Winns are you?

Fuck off. I'm more like Saul Goodman. I know someone who worked at winns for a short time. Reckoned their fingerprint entry system knew how long you were spending on the bog. I like a restful twenty minutes when the need arises.