Another accident thread - DavidHM
Not mine, though. This has just been litigated.

Two cars are crossing a junction where the traffic lights have failed. One hits another. Witness says that both were driving carelessly at high speed, but both parties decide to sue the other so the witness isn't called as it doesn't suit either party's case.

One is an uninsured 40ish woman, the other is an insured 19 year old guy.

The woman claims £40 per day for the loss of her car, plus for the damage to her car. There are no claims for personal injury or anything and she is prosecuted for driving without insurance.

The guy claims for...

The damage to his car
A mini disc player
A camcorder
10 CDs
A new suit because he claims the other one was ripped when he got out of the car
A mobile phone
A month's gym membership (but no injury)
£10 in extra domestic heating costs

But not loss of use, which he might have had a fighting chance of getting.

In the end the woman won (but was only awarded a fiver a day for loss of use of the car - she didn't rent one), mainly because the guy had either just ramraided Dixons or was making up things to claim for. Presumably the only reason it didn't go 50:50 was that she was uninsured.
Another accident thread - puntoo
Good on the bloke for claiming all of the above I would do exactly the same and claim that all forty members of my family were onboard and we all suffered whiplash.
Another accident thread - Andrew-T
puntoo - are we to take your comment seriously? There is an ancient Eskimo proverb about wrongs not making right.
Another accident thread - Morris Ox
Don't forget the displaced hairs, either. I understand that's particularly traumatic at that age and requires counselling.

Plus, of course, loss of face for looking stupid in front of your mates; the inconvenience of having to claim, etc., etc...
Another accident thread - THe Growler
Absolutely, any good contingency fee lawyer would also add a lot more. Sounds pretty modest to me!
Another accident thread - Technoprat {P}
Though, strictly speaking, she should not have won as she ought not to have been on the roAd, being uninsured!
Another accident thread - DavidHM
Despite what you might think, being uninsured is no bar to recovering damages if someone causes an accident in which you are involved. I agree that she shouldn't have been on the road but the judge felt that the accident was the other driver's fault and therefore she was perfectly entitled to recover her genuine expenses.
Another accident thread - HF
Maybe I'm naive, but I think that's absolutely outrageous! To be able to claim, and win, when uninsured - what on earth has gone wrong with our 'justice' system???! It really is no wonder that so many people don't bother getting insurance, and cases like this are just going to encourage that even more. (in fact mine's due soon, maybe I should take note.....;)
Another accident thread - DavidHM
Why should you be able to claim and win when uninsured? Because you only get to claim if someone else caused the accident. You can't claim if you caused it - you're on your own; however, if you're driving harmlessly, but without insurance and someone, say, rear ends you at traffic lights, why should they get off without paying for the damage caused, simply because you didn't pay your premium.

The person causing the accident has no way of knowing that in advance and their moral responsibility is exactly the same either way. If you were to bar uninsured drivers from claiming when they don't cause the damage, you would effectively be giving a windfall to drivers who do cause accidents, or at least their insurance companies.

You will (or at least may) be punished for the potential harm caused by driving without insurance. In my opinion, the punishment for driving without insurance isn't severe enough (often only a quarter or less of the likely premium), plus points, but that's a legally and morally separate issue.

I suppose you could argue that unisured drivers' compensation could be passed on to the Motor Insurers' Bureau to reduce the element we pay for damage caused by, rather than to, uninsured drivers, or alternatively say that premiums would be reduced across the board if uninsured drivers couldn't claim.
Another accident thread - HF
That's a fair point David. I agree that the accident-causer should not be able to get away with what he/she has done, and that the fact that the other driver is uninsured should not detract from any moral responsibility.

I agree 100% that the punishment for driving uninsured is way, way too low, and, as has been said before, has got to be the reason why so many people are prepared to risk it.

And I would totally endorse the idea that any compensation awarded to the uninsured driver should passed on to the MIB, because to me it is utterly ludicrous that the uninsured driver should benefit from claiming in any way at all, bearing in mind the fact that they have absolutely no morals at all in ensuring that others might claim from them in similar but reversed circumstances.
Another accident thread - Technoprat {P}
Very good point. The bad driver is punished for his bad driving but the uninsured doesn't get the compensation. Much fairer!
Another accident thread - DavidHM
I've floated the idea of making payments to the MIB but I have to say, on reflection, that I have a couple of post-pub problems with it.

The first is that insurance payouts are designed to put the victim back in the position they would have been in had the tort (in this case, accident) not occurred. Where the payment doesn't go to the victim, it's difficult to assess the damages or for that matter, get the victim's co-operation in assessing the level to be paid.

The second is that the uninsured driver may have a passenger who is totally unaware of the driver's status. Should that passenger also be denied compensation? Similarly, a person may be driving uninsured, believing themselves to be covered by an any driver policy or having forgotten that the policy has expired or been invalidated - in which case, denying them compensation seems to be over the top.

Thirdly, it would make driving uninsured look very much like self-insurance. People might feel less guilty about 'taking' the compensation they (via their insurer) would otherwise have to pay from the MIB, if they felt that they were also 'giving' the benefit of any accident they might be involved in.

Finally, insurance payouts often benefit the state indirectly, for instance in providing money for medical care or just giving someone the cash to buy a new car so they can still get to work and not go on benefit. The value of the payout might be useful to society as a whole, but in some (though certainly not all) cases we would do better if we actually did invest that money in the uninsured accident victim, rather than spreading the money around across all drivers.
Another accident thread - Fullchat
Must be a drop of good stuff they serve at your local!

Whilst I have some sympathy with innocent victims in all this I'm afraid I am a bit more authoritarian. Its a question of responsibilities; something people seem to be well short of these days. As they say everyone knows their rights but not their responsibilities.

If you have not got insurance then you should not be on the road plain and simple. If you get hit then thats just tough, if someone in the car is hurt well take issue with the driver. Its their responsibility if they are driving about uninsured. You break the law you have no rights.

Its uninsured drivers that are pushing up premiums of all the law abiding motorists. Money for health care? Yes private health care and consultants reports for spurious whiplash claims. The legal profession doesn't do too badly out of all this either. They can buy a new car with their compensation and run around uninsured in that as well! ( And I dont mean the legal profession!!!!!) The NHS at present which we all pay into gets not a penny.

There must be a detterent so that even the - " I don't give a flying ......... about society or its laws, I'll do as I please brigade" have second thoughts about what they do and the consequences


Fullchat
Another accident thread - Technoprat {P}
The second is that the uninsured driver may have a passenger
who is totally unaware of the driver's status. Should that
passenger also be denied compensation? Similarly, a person may be
driving uninsured, believing themselves to be covered by an any driver
policy or having forgotten that the policy has expired or been
invalidated - in which case, denying them compensation seems to be
over the top.



But they would have a separate claim against the culpable driver anyway - their claim would not be dependent upon any claim by the uninsured driver whose compensation could still be paid to MIB.
Another accident thread - HF
You are going to make one hell of a good lawyer, David! You're confusing me so much that I could be persuaded to agree with any or all of your points! Even though the post-pub ones seem to be arguing with the sober ones!
Another accident thread - Ian (Cape Town)
Just re-read this, after reading through the threads...
Two cars are crossing a junction where the traffic lights have failed. One hits another.
Ok, 2 wrongs not making a right... Traffic light was failed. I don't recall the exact UK law on this, but IIRC, a failed light becomes a STOP. So neither stopped.
One is an uninsured 40ish woman, the other is an insured
19 year old guy.

Well done to him for being insured, she's a silly cow. 3 wrongs don't make a right.

The woman claims £40 per day for the loss of her car, plus for the damage to her car. There are no claims for personal injury or anything and she is prosecuted for driving without insurance.
Good job too!

The guy claims for...
The damage to his car
Fair, me thinks.
A mini disc player
A camcorder
10 CDs
A new suit because he claims the other one was ripped
when he got out of the car
A mobile phone etc etc etc

Isn't this Perjury? Or Fraud?
Four wrongs ...
Another accident thread - Gen
What the judge should have done:

WOMAN

Loss of car damages - rejected - car was used in the performance of a crime. Would amount to compensation for being unable to commit a continuing crime.

Personal Injury - rejected - injury was incurred during committing a crime and the criminal takes their own risks as a matter of public policy.

Car crushed - car was an object used solely and exclusively to perpetrate a crime.

Other punishments etc.

MAN

Case thrown out - trying to use the court system to commit fraud, measured on balance of probabilities

Prosecute for fraud if can prove beyond reasonable doubt.




Another accident thread - Technoprat {P}
Personal Injury - rejected - injury was incurred during committing a
crime and the criminal takes their own risks as a matter
of public policy.


Are Tony Martin and Brendon Fearon aware of this?
Another accident thread - DavidHM
This is deeply off topic, but the civil case that is coming up will be decided by reference to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. This basically says that, for whatever reason people are on your property, you have a duty to make sure that it is reasonably safe for them - although obviously the standard of safety is lower for burglars than it is for your grandchildren in a paddling pool.

It creates civil liability, rather than crimes. Because of the way the law is drafted, it doesn't exclude illegal purposes, so as it is statute, passed by Parliament, and Parliament overrules case law, the outcome is fairly clear.

Newberry is a very similar criminal case from 10 years ago which was also followed by a successful civil action for damages, so Fearon will win, maybe not on every head of claim (e.g., loss of earnings), but overall he will be able to claim something - reduced undoubtedly for contributory negligence.

Oh and if the moderators want to pull this post, I have no objections whatsoever.
Another accident thread - HisHonour {P}
The judge in the motoring case was correct in law though I suspect he would rather not have had to make an award to an uninsured driver, hence the rather small award given.

À propos the Martin/Fearon case, DavidHM is correct in that Fearon will probably win technically. I doubt he will get anything for loss of earnings as I am not sure he has ever had a job and the fact he was unable to go burgling for a while is inadmissible. He will probably win a claim for personal injury but I will be very surprised if the court awards him more than £50. This is received opinion amongst my colleagues on the Bench but, of course, the case will be tried on its merits on the day and you should discount any prior opinions a judge may hold.
Another accident thread - HF
Your Honour,

I do hope Fearon gets nothing. It is absolutely crazy that he has been given leave to appeal on this. At the same time, this is a very, very weird case, and IMO Martin (purely from what I have seen in the papers) was a very very weird man - and I am certainly not in the 'free Tony Martin' brigade.
Another accident thread - HisHonour {P}
Martin is certainly an odd fish and it is entirely right that he should have been imprisoned. I may say that it was something of a surprise to the legal profession that he was found guilty of murder in the first instance - Juries can be strange animals - a charge of manslaughter was always justified as Mr Martin took no care whatever about the injury he was meeting out. His defence may have considered pleading not guilty on the grounds of diminished reponsibility but that may have resulted in Mr Martin being placed in a mental hospital from which he may have had considerable problems in being discharged. His defence had perfectly reasonable expectations of his being found not guilty on a murder charge. However, perhaps a motoring discussion forum is not the best place for this topic!
Another accident thread - HF
Yes, ok Your Honour!
Another accident thread - Dynamic Dave
Oi you lot!! Motoring discussion please.
Another accident thread - Gen

>>> Personal Injury - rejected - injury was incurred during committing a
>>> crime and the criminal takes their own risks as a matter
>>> of public policy.
>>>

>Are Tony Martin and Brendon Fearon aware of this?

Oops...looks like my comments started this! I didn't mean this was what the judge could have done. Just what I wish it was!



 

Value my car