Re: Uninsured driver making personal injury claim - is this insane or what?
- From: "The Todal" <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:04:23 +0100
"Tommo" <sxt2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177950196.662801.138100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 30 Apr, 16:09, "The Todal" <deadmail...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Arthur Shaw" <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:du6dnbqs1OaLYqjbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Briefly:-
My wife rear ended another car a few weeks ago and it turns out the
driver
she hit was uninsured.
How do you know?
Now the uninsured driver has put in a personal injury claim against my
wife's insurance.
Is this guy trying it on or does he stand any real chance of getting
compensation? Surely he would have forfeited his right to compensation
due
to the fact that he was not insured?
If your wife collided with the rear of his car, she is almost certainly
liable in negligence. He can claim compensation for his injuries. The
fact
that he is uninsured (if that is true) is completely irrelevant.
<Devil's Advocate>
What about a defence of 'ex turpi causa' (apologies for the use of
Latin, which I dislike, but it is snappier and better known than its
translation: "a dishonorable cause does not give rise to an action.")
I'd say not applicable. If the plan was to murder someone by running them
over, and in doing so the driver's passenger got a whiplash injury, then
possibly you could argue ex turpi causa. Anyway, "driver was uninsured"
could mean insured third party only or could merely mean that the driver's
insurers won't compensate him for his injuries, which is standard.
In Edwards v Jerman, it was argued that the claimant could not recover
because he was driving under the influence of alcohol which would impair his
reactions and this amounted to ex turpi causa. Held, for the claim to be
defeated under the ex turpi causa maxim, the claimant would have to be
relying on the act of illegality to found his cause of action, and this was
not the case.
</Devil's Advocate>
Thinking about this reminded me of a RTA claim where the Defendant's
solicitors tried to defend the case on the basis that the injured
party's tax disk was out of date.
These arguments probably arise only in the context of MIB (Motor Insurers
Bureau) cases. If you are a passenger and you know that the driver is
uninsured, you may be precluded from claiming compensation from the Bureau.
But I think from memory that's because of a scheme rule, not because of the
law of negligence.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Uninsured driver making personal injury claim - is this insane or what?
- Next by Date: Re: More Police state tactics
- Previous by thread: Re: Uninsured driver making personal injury claim - is this insane or what?
- Next by thread: Re: Uninsured driver making personal injury claim - is this insane or what?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
