"I doubt it."
The problem is proving that the blow out was a result of the negligence of the lorry driver. The only way I can see that he could be liable is if the tyre was poorly maintained, e.g. below minimum tread depth. If that was not the case I cannot see how the driver can be held negligent and he is therefore not liable for the damage caused.
Unfortunately a lot of people believe that there is always someone legally liable form whom damages can be recovered. This is absolutely not the case and emphasises the need for the accidental damage element of comprehensive cover.
|
Well the ambulance chasers dropped this one like a hot potato, what does that tell you..............
|
There is no such thing as "an act of good" in motoring insurance.
The wind didnt blow it off. It wasnt struck by lightening. A tree didnt fall over and knock it off. The concept simply doesent exist. The lorry company are insured for ALL third party risks. The lorry driver and his company are responsible for ALL part of the lorry and if ANY part of it comes off and causes damage thay are insured. Its not blame its a claim.
|
|
|
... what does that tell you.......... >>
I think it tells us to stop posting, and wait and see if gaz4leigh replies to the questions asked here.
|
but the concept is a valid one and worthy of discussion
|
but the concept is a valid one and worthy of discussion >>
Agreed.
|
Tyre means rock in Phoenician and a rock is a hard place.
Hee Haw, Hee Haw!
|
there are truck out their without speed limiters, they are these that are registered in places like Ireland, Hungry, Russia
A spee limiter only works if the truck is running on level ground or up hill, on down gradients, its possible a truck can speed up
Tyres should hold at much greater speed then 70 MPH
Most tyres blow because of over heating, either due to wrong tyre pressure, or other mechanical factors such as breaks holding a bit
Without the actual tyre the OP has no chance of proving what happened, whether it was a defect, operators fault or the tyre running over a stone or something that led to damage and resulting in the blow out that damaged the car
|
You were overtaking the lorry, so you were alongside on the right hand side. The lorrys left tyre blows out and manages to hit your car? Seems a bit odd.
Two weeks off work with no pay? With a family to support you need to get a grip and get back to work, fast before your boss sacks you. If they dont pay you sick leave then I guess they will be quite happy to fire you as well.
Your car is undriveable? Why? It was driving perfectly fine when you were chasing down the lorry driver.
Your car is written off? I thought you said your insurance was not getting involved? So how can it be written off?
Sorry to sound so harsh, but I'm afraid its a cruel, wicked world.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 13/11/2009 at 14:20
|
Just to add something a little more constructive, an understanding of proximate cause may help:
vault2.secured-url.com/iib/encyclopeadia_item.asp?...1
|
I wonder how many new forum members just never return after getting a `thrashing` on their first post.
Clearly Gaz4Leigh is in a `first time` situation and seems to be in a wretched position with the car - as well as suffering financially and physically - and who knows if traumatised with the shock?
Surely a little compassion for her is not amiss? - certainly I wish her well and hope that her situation soon improves.
|
Surely a little compassion for her is not amiss?
Yep.
|
Surely a little compassion for her is not amiss?
I think Gaz has already had a little compassion. Theres something fishy about it, maybe if Gaz was to return and furnish some more details then more constructive posts will follow.
Despite Gaz's dodgy sounding post, the question about wether the lorry drivers insurer should be liable is a good one. I've been behind a lorry on a motorway that shredded a tyre, luckily for me there was no damage as the tyre ended up in lots of small chunks that just bounced off my widnscreen.
|
|
sory if i have upset anyone, i will clear a few things up, there is nothing dodgey about my situation and i have never had a crash or accident or even been in a car when someone has had one. i have been driving for a year so am new to the roads. i over-exagerrated a little on my car being 'written off' and 'unuasble'. the damage to my car is the front bumper is completely smashed to pieces, my wing is dented and my bonnet is...how can i word it....lifted up? the accident happened at 10.30 at night, and yes, i did see the tyre but it looked like a piece of cardboard or paper floating throught the air. i am off work due to not being able to get back behind the wheel yet!! and i have to drive to work as i work 12 hour shifts and public transport doesnt run ne where near my works. i only wanted some advice not a thrashing from people and sorry if i have offended any one. the police seemed more interested in gettin back in thier car as it was raining.......
|
you dont need to say sorry but some of the doubting Thomas's on this forum need to!
|
|
thank you mick.....at least someone isnt going at me :(
|
Rightho, lets get practical.
Your first priority is to get rid of the hire car, and get your car back on the road, and get back to work.
You may need to get some help from friends to find someone who could find another bumper for your car, probably from a breakers and either put it on for you or you must find a local small bodyshop who will do the job for you pronto.
They'll probably be able to knock your wing and bonnet back into safe working shape for minimal cost too.
That's what i'd do in the practical sense IF there's no chance of a claim being honoured, and it seems the accident handler's have taken a step back already so i think you may have to accept this could be the case.
Hopefully some experts will be along to advise a sure way to proceed claim wise.
As soon as you can, get comprehensive cover for your car, if you search around it really shouldn't be any more than 10% more expensive than TPFT.
|
|
yeh hire car goes back monday, ive not even used it!!lol. i'm back at work tuesday and have been informed today that although i dont get comany sick pay i do get ssp?? not sure what that is but spose its something. the hire company are bringing my car back when they take the hire car on monday but yeh i do think i'm fighting a losing battle. just upset as i know parts for my car (alfa romeo 147 t-spark) are very expensive, the only reason i have 2rd party f + th is because the comp cover was £2k as i'm classed as a new driver. thanks for the advise :) just hope this never happens to any one else as i feel robbed..........how can they blame me or god for whats happened??
|
do get ssp?? not sure what that is but spose its something.
Don't get excited it's not much.
Alfa 147... a bit of a high insurance grouped car for a newish driver, as you've found out, but that can't be helped now.
Get someone on the case finding the bumper from a breaker, as for the hire car going back Monday..are you sure they arn't going to try and bill you for the time you've had the thing, maybe get on the blower and double check tomorrow morning if you can't make head nor tail of the gobbldeegook of the pages of small print, you don't need any more costs to bear.
|
im not saying the lorry driver is to blame but surely his company are?? what if i was killed in the car, would they still say 'not our problem'. i dont beleive in god!!!
if a tree was struck by lightening and fell on my car then yes, thats an act of god but how is his tyre blowing out and hitting my car an act of god?
i have spent all day researching and found the following info on pistonheads.com
you will often hear of people discussing 'blow outs'. a trye blow-out, to give it a definition, is the sudden and total deflation of a tyre due to the collapse of it's structure. There is a tremendous amount of rubbish talked of when it comes to 'blow-outs' and it is something that is severly misunderstood amongst the motoring population. Blowouts do NOT just happen, they are caused and that cause 99.9% of the time is negligence coupled with lack of awareness........................................
so now where do i stand???
and how can there be something fishy about my claim???? so are you saying i drove into the lorries tyres??? no i am quite happy with life and DO NOT have suicidal tendancies :(
|
It can be an act of God, for example if the tyre got damaged by hitting a pothole or a brick or something an hour or two before your accident.
As I said without that tyre no one can say whether it was the drivers fault, manufactures fault, operators or the tyre was damaged by accident and is no ones fault
Edited by skittles on 12/11/2009 at 22:12
|
if i was killed in the car would they still say 'not our problem'.
If you'd been killed then there would have been a very thorough investigation by Police Accident Investigators into the lorry operators procedures etc, but they still may well have come out "clean"
i have spent all day researching and found the following info on pistonheads.com
Did you see the quite recent thread on PH where exactly the same happened to someone else, with just the same explanation:
tinyurl.com/yzkk3qs
|
im not saying the lorry driver is to blame but surely his company are??
Not to blame gaz. Liable. There's a difference.
I too wish you well.
But there is really no need to exaggerate. Tell it like it is, as accurately as possible.
Bit of tin bashing, new or preferably secondhand bumper... work at it steadily and you may get the trucker's insurance to pay. They are liable after all.
Forget about your religious beliefs. 'Act of God' is a legal term. Forget about the lorry's speed or alleged acceleration. Nothing to do with anything here. Good luck.
|
The problem you face gas4leigh is in proving negligence by the lorry driver. Obviously a blow out could be the result of his negligence, e.g. worn or under-inflated tyres. Equally it could be the result of a slow puncture picked up an hour or two earlier or even a manufacturing defect in the tyre. Both of the later events would not be negligence on the part of the driver and you would not have a valid claim against him.
Since a blowout does not de facto prove negligence you would have to have to establish this. The only way to do this would be by scientific examination of the remains of the tyre.
Unfortunately without such evidence I suspect any claim will fail. However as has already been suggested it would be worth consulting a solicitor for a professional view.
|
|
If the tyre had a manufacturing defect you could possibly have a claim against the manufacturer
|
you do NOT have to prove negligence. you dont have to assert blame. A part of the lorry came off and It hit your car. The lorry company ARE liable even if they are not to blame.
If you assert your rights you will get the lorry insurance company to pay, BUT it will take time and perserverance, which doesent help your immediate problem of the brken car.
|
A thought
it was the tyre from their lorry wasnt it? not one that was already on the road and the lorry drove over it?
In that case they are not liable, its not their tyre.
|
|
yes it was off the lorry as when we all stopped with the police we looked. it was the 3rd tyre from the front, twin wheeler so that straightens another question as previous when someone mentioned the lorry driver must have known. he didnt know, the first he knew is when we pulled up.
|
"you do NOT have to prove negligence. you dont have to assert blame
The lorry company ARE liable even if they are not to blame. "
Unfortunately that is not the case AE. To be liable for damage or injury a driver may cause it is necessary for the third party to prove negligence. I agree that if a part of a vehicle becomes detached and hits another vehicle, e.g a poorly secured load it will almost certainly in itself be proof of negllgence .. However a tyre blowout is not the same. It can happen without any fault attaching to the driver as in the examples I mentioned.
|
OP, one other thing crosses my mind.
When you get your car back...before you drive it anywhere get someone with a bit of nous to jack it up and check the underside especially brake and fuel pipes etc for any damage.
Edited by gordonbennet on 12/11/2009 at 23:00
|
|
yeh will do that monday, got a friend who has a friend who works in a garage and he sed he gunna pop along and look at it for me, think ive got a lot of sympathy coming from friends as i spose nobody wanna be in a situation like mine. thanks for that :)
|
|
You have my sympathy too gaz4leigh
|
... I agree that if a part of a vehicle becomes detached and hits another vehicle ... >>
Barichello's rear suspension spring nearly killing Massa comes to mind!
|
gaz,
Don't take the stuff above personally, unfortunately it can be common for people to register on this forum, post something doubtful...and we never see them again. I understand the technical term for it is a 'troll'. Quite why they bother I haven't worked out yet..but...it can mean a genuine new poster can be somewhat doubted...and i'll admit I was wondering...so I was wrong as well.
There are some helpful people on here and I think they get fed up when messed about.
Hope everything sorts itself out.
|
The main thing to sort out ASAP is the hire. Make sure you're not paying and if you are (you could be unfortunately depending on what you signed) then get rid of it tomorrow.
Hope it all works out.
|
Gaz, as has been said, there's no need to exaggerate or accuse the lorry driver of speeding as it isn't relevant to the case.
What I would do is follow the practical suggestions but I would also contact the lorry drivers employer.
Calmly, concisely put forward what happened, show the expense you've had because of it ( without any exaggeration), explain your situation and ask if they would be prepared to reimburse you for at least some of it.
You may be surprised at the reaction you get from them.
Now we know which tyre it actually was it makes far more sense:)
If you do decide to do this, let us all know how you get on please.
Pat
Edited by pda on 13/11/2009 at 05:44
|
Gaz, good to see you have returned and explained things more clearly. No need to apologise either, I dont think anyone was offended by your post, it just sounded a bit dodgy.
Good advice already given above, priority has to be to get car driveable so you can get back to work. If you employer doesn't pay sick leave then you can claim SSP, make sure you have sick note from doc.
Looks like the insurance claim could be a losing battle, even though common sense tells me that the lorry drivers insurer should be liable.
Maybe you could recover at least some of your costs via the small claims court? I think a few people on here have used it before and will be able to offer more details.
|
"you do NOT have to prove negligence. you dont have to assert blame The lorry company ARE liable even if they are not to blame. " Unfortunately that is not the case AE. To be liable for damage or injury a driver may cause it is necessary for the third party to prove negligence.
This is NOT the case. the trye constitutes a part of the lorry. The cause does not need to be established. As i said motor inssurance is about Claim not blame.
You DONT have to prove negligence in this case.
|
"you do NOT have to prove negligence. you dont have to assert blame
This is the big question here - and there's a fundamental difference of opinion between AE and CGNorwich. So who is right?
I would have assumed AE was right - if anything falls off vehicle A and damages vehicle B, then I assume vehicle B has a valid 3rd party claim against the owner/insurer of vehicle A. If a tile blows off my roof and lands on my neighbour's car, same thing. There must be plenty of legal precedent for such cases. I'd be interested to know the answer!
|
>>If a tile blows off my roof and lands on.........
I lost several tiles in a gale, along with many in the neighbourhood. My neighbour had a smashed conservatory roof and one of my roof tiles in it. He lost no tiles.
My insurance paid for my tiles, his for the conservatory.
|
The people of Tyre (Tyrians) were famous for their purple dye which they extracted from from The Murex, a marine snail that lives along the shores of Tyre.
Hee Haw, Hee Haw!
|
My insurance paid for my tiles his for the conservatory.
If the lorry was properly parked, unattended and a gust of wind came along and blew it in the air and landed on your roof, then the insurer of the lorry may claim act of god and might get away with it.
If the lorry was properly parked, unattended and the brakes failed, and it rolled down the hill into your house, they would be respponsible.
In this case, the tyre failed, in use and they are responsible. Thats why you have third party insurance. Any judge would consider such a claim reasonable.
If you can get the claim that far.
|
I think AE is probably right, the damage was caused by debris directly from the lorry. That is enough to substantiate a claim. However, as gaz4leigh doesn't have fully comp insurance or legal cover (presumably) there is nobody to fight their corner, hence why the lorry's insurance are trying it on with the "act of god" nonsense.
Now to solve your problem, gaz4leigh. Firstly, it is worth contacting a different accident claims company (one with a better reputation, maybe) and seeing if they are interested.
Present it thus: "I was on the motorway overtaking a lorry when debris from the lorry (what caused it and why doesn't matter) struck my car". That's it. These facts should be agreed upon by the lorry's insurers too. The rest is irrelevant - stick to the facts. If they offer you a hire car whilst yours is being repaired, insist on something very small and cheap, this will help smooth things in claiming from the 3rd party.
If you can get a claims company interested (there's lot to choose from!), not only will they repair your car, but they will also be able to make a claim for your other losses, e.g. pay lost because of time off work.
When choosing a claims company, pick one that's well known and has insurance in place to cover any losses which they are unable to recover, so you don't get landed with a bill for the hire car later on.
Above all, don't give up just yet. There's still options to explore.
If all else fails, follows Gordon Bennett's excellent advice, get some second hand parts, hammer the other bits straight and move on.
My best wishes with getting over the shock and getting back behind the wheel. Try not to leave it too long, the longer you leave it, the harder it will get. Good luck!
Edited by TheOilBurner on 13/11/2009 at 10:09
|
|
Excellent post TheOilBurner
|
So as a new inexperienced driver of just a year you have debris from a lorry smash into your car at nearly 70mph causing a level of damage that could include suspension/brake failure or a bonnet that might flip up... and you say causing you great shock... so you drive on regardless speeding up and actually stop/pull over a lorry at motorway speeds... with no regard to the responsibility for your 8-yr old son and passenger... amazing.
There is still either something odd in the account or you are a very very reckless driver who could have caused a far more major motorway accident than the damage done by the shedding tyre!
You should thank God you got away with your actions.
|
>>> You should thank God you got away with your actions. <<<
Poor old God, he gets the blame for everything these days - Global warming anyone?
|
>>> I was being ironic :-) <<<
So was I Brother - - - - - - - -> :-D
|
if anything falls off vehicle A and damages vehicle B then I assume vehicle B has a valid 3rd party claim against the owner/insurer of vehicle A. If a tile blows off my roof and lands on my neighbour's car same thing. There must be plenty of legal precedent for such cases. I'd be interested to know the answer!
There is plenty of legal precedent and unfortunately for the OP it validates the insurance company's position.
If a tile blows of my roof and damages my neighbours car then I (or my insurance company) will only have a liability if I have breached my duty of care to my neighbour (i.e. I have been negligent in maintaining my roof). If there were no apparent problems with the roof then I owe my neighbour nothing.
If a tyre blows out on a lorry and damages another motorists car then the lorry's insurer will only have a liability if the lorry's owner has breached their duty of care to other motorists (i.e. to have been negligent in maintaining the tyre, for example, if the tyre was over or under inflated, damaged, worn out or being fouled by part of the bodywork). If the failure of the tyre could not have been foreseen then there is no liability.
A solicitor will be able to confirm the situation to the OP in an initial free consultation.
|
>There is plenty of legal precedent and unfortunately for the OP it validates the insurance company's position.
Afraid there isnt. Your house insurance is not all third party risk. Motoring insurance is and has to be to meet the requirements of the RTA., Is a different type of policy.
You cant compare house insurance and motoring insurance.
Edited by Altea Ego on 13/11/2009 at 11:14
|
make sure you have sick note from doc <<
What? For not having access to a car.
Not even slightly medical.
It's an HR issue, and if one of my patients came with that story they'd be told the same.
-
"Acts of God" is a tricky area - if a driver has a fit/heart attack and crashes, if there was no prior history of ill health, then there is no liability. If they have, then liability is much more likely.
As has been mentioned is a good reason for Full Comp insurance, especially if you cannot afford to cover your losses without financial difficulty. If you are driving a £1000 banger then it's not going to be in your best interest to make a claim anyway as the knock-on effect on insurance costs will far outweigh the payment (minus excess).
As also has been mentioned the OP needs to get legal advice to see if she has a case to put forward. A solicitor should be able to do this within a 'free' initial consult.
|
"Acts of God" is a tricky area - if a driver has a fit/heart attack and crashes if there was no prior history of ill health then there is no liability.
Come on then, let's see authoritative evidence for this.
|
>> "Acts of God" is a tricky area - if a driver has a fit/heart attack >> and crashes if there was no prior history of ill health then there is no >> liability. Come on then let's see authoritative evidence for this.
Ryan v Young [1938] 1 All ER 522
Driver appeared to be of sound health but suffered with fatty degeneration of the heart. Medical examination could not have indicated any liability to sudden collapse. Held: driver not liable.
However, the position is not as straight forward if the driver has a history of ill health. It may be possible to establish that he was negligent in driving if he had reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Establishing this may be difficult and will certainly require a detailed consideration of the driver's medical history, and in particular their GP notes and also making enquiries of the DVLA.
See Waugh v James K Allan Ltd. [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep. (House of Lords):
The driver if a lorry was suddenly disabled by an attack of coronary thrombosis which killed him. The lorry mounted the pavement and struck the Appellant ?.
Fifteen minutes before the accident the driver had been taken ill when loading the lorry but had recovered, at least partially, and had driven off. He had driven a quarter of a mile when the accident occurred. He had gastric attacks from time to time in the past but otherwise enjoyed good health.
Held: A motor vehicle is potentially a lethal weapon; there vests upon every driver of such a vehicle a serious duty owed to his fellow human beings not to drive the vehicle on a public road if he has or should have reasonable grounds for thinking that, from illness or otherwise, his skill or judgment as a driver may have been impaired. Nevertheless, on the facts of this case, the driver was not negligent in taking the lorry out; he had no reason to suppose that his illness was not another gastric attack which, when it passed off, left no serious disability.
Jones v. Denison [1971] RTR 174, CA.
The Defendant was driving his car when it ran out of control on to the pavement, striking the Plaintiff and injuring her. His defence to this claim for damages was that he had temporarily lost control due to a ?blackout?, i.e. loss of consciousness. His medical history including a coronary thrombosis six years earlier and a slight cerebral thrombosis. His doctor had not advised he should not drive. He also had four short blackouts in the previous ten months but had been unaware of them: his wife knew of them but did not tell him of them until after the accident. In the Court below the Judge accepted the Defendant?s evidence that he did not know of the blackouts before the accident and held that he had discharged the burden of proof on him. His wife was not called to give evidence because of illness. On appeal it was argued that without the wife?s evidence as to when, and where and how the blackouts had taken place it was an undefended case.
Held: the Judge had properly directed himself that the real issue was whether the Defendant ought to have realised from what had happened in the past that he ought not to have been driving. On the evidence of the Defendant and his doctor there was no ground for saying he ought reasonably to have suspected that he was or might be subject to an attack such as he had had. The onus was on the Defendant and he had established his case. Appeal dismissed.
www.zenithchambers.co.uk/articles/Successive_Injur...c
|
|
Nothing legal is black and white - that's why there are many wealthy lawyers - but the odds are stacked against the OP as no-one will take this case on and she can't afford to pursue it herself (and in all probability would lose anyway).
|
|
But what about insurance payouts?
|
|
just thought i'dlet you know my car was book priced at £2900.................... so i'm not driving a £1000 banger!!
|
You cant compare house insurance and motoring insurance.
The fact is you can.
As far as damage caused to third parties it is the law relating to the tort of negligence that matters. The same legal principles apply however the damage or loss occurred. The RTA does not change these principles, it only makes it compulsory to have insurance to cover you against any liability you incur as a result of negligent driving of a road vehicle.
|
... cover you against any liability you incur as a result of negligent driving of a road vehicle. >>
CGNorwich: why does the law use words such as:
" ... owing to the presence of a Mechanically Propelled Vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which -
(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused - .... "
Edited by jbif on 13/11/2009 at 16:08
|
|
just updating every one. still knowhere with claim, a solicitors in manchester have took it on through national accident helpline but the drivers company sent someone out to look at the damage and then said they are not accepting liability and it IS an act of god!!! argh!!! the company have sent details of the lorry and apparenty it shows the maintainence details were all up to date so am back to square one.
|
Hii again, Gax4leigh.
Maybe it`s best to move on and patch it up from parts available in scrapyards. I have repaired similar damage at very low cost doing it this way.
We had an old Polo that needed a new front bumper, wing and door after a smash and I sourced them all (in the correct colour) and fitted them for under £100.
Your sad story is a good advert for Comprehensive insurance - with the extra legal protection cover. That said - you possibly have not lost out by not having it - as you will have saved on the Third party policy.
Incidentally, if your situation had happened to me - it would never have occurred to me to to try to hold someone responsible. I would have put it down to `bad luck`
All the best to you.
|
|
|
|
|
