Road accident compensation

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Still no such thing. Terms 'inevitable' & 'accident' are incompatible

 

Sorry, this is utter tosh!

 

This is a common law defence available to an allegation of negligence.

 

For example, there is a legal principle res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) which means what it says - an accident would not have occured but for the negligence of the defendant. This can be rebutted by showing that the event itself was an inevitable accident.

 

It can be found referred to in many cases (usually because the defendant has failed to prove it as it is their obligation to do so if they plead it) and it is also referred to in some statutes.

[JonCris]

I stand by my remarks. The term accident if used where there is negligence is not an accident

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I stand by my remarks. The term accident if used where there is negligence is not an accident

 

What I feel may be causing confusion here is equating a negligent act with a deliberate or intentional act.

 

The best manifestation of this is say when a husband is driving a car with himself and his wife. He fails to control his car when it hits a patch of diesel at the exit of a garage on the bend of a road and crashes injuring his wife. It was an accident in that it was an unintentional fortuitous event. He is negligent but he didn't intend to cause the accident, he didn't mean to cause it and just because his wife sues for compensation it does not mean that she no longer loves him or that she hates him or bears any animosity to him.

[JonCris]

He would only be negligent if he saw or should have seen the diesel spill & failed to take to respond accordingly. In this scenario you describe negligence lays elsewhere

 

For example the garage, dependant on the circumstances & assuming the spiller can't be identified, could be held to be liable particularly if it could be proven they knew about the spill yet did nothing. Or even the local council if again they knew about yet did nothing within a reasonable time frame

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I chose this example deliberately. It can be argued that the driver should have at the very least anticipated the potential for the presence of diesel at the exit of the garage, it's a likely place for it. He was also negligent in failing to control his vehicle through and out of the skid.

 

In any event, even if negligence can be shown to lie elsewhere that does not absolve the driver of liability. There is the concept of contributory negligence although this is usually disregarded where it is below 20%.

 

In this case, if the insurers of the driver chose to defend on the basis that they are not liable, but an unidentified third party was, as motor third party liability insurance is compulsory they will have to pay and exercise their rights of subrogation against the third party if and when they can be identified. It will be contrary to public policy to have an unindemnified third party when there is a policy of insurance, required by law, in place, precisely for that purpose.

[JonCris]

Failed to control his skid! Have you ever hit a patch of diesel?

 

I have & can tell you there's no chance of controlling anything even at low speeds. Your brakes are useless, your steering is certainly useless. All you can hope for is that you eventually come to rest before hitting anyone or anything

 

A likely place for a diesel spill!. What sort of garages do you visit cos I know that of the many that I visit throughout the year I never see any diesel spill except at the pump

 

Diesel spills are more likely to occur on or near roundabouts

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Failed to control his skid! Have you ever hit a patch of diesel?

 

Yes, in a car and on a motorbike.

 

I have & can tell you there's no chance of controlling anything even at low speeds. Your brakes are useless, your steering is certainly useless. All you can hope for is that you eventually come to rest before hitting anyone or anything

 

Not so. It's hard but not impossible. One of the biggest problems is driver overreaction and doing precisely the wrong thing. Spending time on a skid pan helps.

 

A likely place for a diesel spill!. What sort of garages do you visit cos I know that of the many that I visit throughout the year I never see any diesel spill except at the pump

 

Diesel spills are more likely to occur on or near roundabouts

 

I said a likely place not the most likely place. Other places to be particularly aware include bus stops and the exits from laybys with truckers cafes but there are others. Did you know that the red paint used by TFL for the CC road markings has a tendency to "soak" up oil etc.

 

I think we are probably done here for the sake of others!

[Tom87]

I know road law doesn't agree with me, but I believe there are times when an "incident" really is a complete accident. If something is not an accident, that suggests that it is deliberate, or intentional. There are no two ways about that - every action in our lives that we ever do are one of only two things - intentional and unintentional.

 

To put this into context, if a driver has an accident because his brakes fail on a hill, it is obviously mechanical failure, and the driver is not at fault. As road law states there is no such thing as an accident, it is therefore implying that someone consciously caused the accident. It is therefore implying either that the manufacturer deliberately made bad brakes, or the garage deliberately didn't fix them properly, or a disgruntled employee at the factory deliberately sabotaged it. These are extremely serious allegations to make and obviously should not be made lightly. It's about time this stupid law changed and acknowledged that sometimes an accident is just that - an accident that no-one could have done anything about!

 

No human being is perfect, we all make unintentional and unavoidable mistakes - either the driver, another driver or the manufacturer - so why can't road law accept that?!

Edited July 3, 2008 by Tom87

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Tom87,

I think that you are looking at too high a level.

While acts may be intentional or unintentional the concept of negligence goes further. An unintentional act may be a negligent act this is at the heart of the famous leading case of Rylands v Fletcher. You also have to look at whether the consequences were forseeable or not. Then the question comes as to whether or not the person alleged to have been negligent owes a higher standard of care than "the man on the Clapham omnibus".

You make the point that the driver is not at fault for mechanical failure but it is not as simple as this. If the driver had not taken reasonable care to ensure the mechanical status of his car (say by not servicing it correctly) then negligence, fault and liability can and will be proved.

There are accidents that happen in which there is no negligence but they are few and far between.