Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Opinion - One for Moeman / The Fuzz...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legal Opinion - One for Moeman / The Fuzz...

    Hope you can answer this, its re: a recent event that happened to a friend of mine. Friend being "C"

    "A" lent "B" his car so that "B" could go drifting around a local multistory carpark. "A" claims that he knew "B" was insured on a traders policy to drive his vehicle, however i very much doubt the conversation 'you got insurance', 'yea I have a traders policy' took place ant that "B" was able to prove this to "A".

    So off "B" went drifting when "C" comes along, driving on to the carpark and being hit by "B". In "A"s words "C" came 'tearing in to the drift arena', which with "C" owning a brand spanking new car, and being a sensible, safe driver doubt this is what happened.

    Now although looking at the damage to "C"s car, smashed in drivers side door / rear 1/4 and knowing the road markings of the scene, giving "C" right of way where the accident occured to me it looks like "B" was at fault, however as "B" is a good friend of "C", "C" has decided to take it on the chin and claim on his own insurance for his own car and also "A"s car.

    Now my point is that "A" is just as responsible for the accident as "B" as he knew "B" was going to drift his car in a carpark (Private land being a council carpark, but IIRC carparks legally class as a public road, therefore no driving without a license etc?) which in my mind would constitute at minimum a DD44 in Causing or Permitting Dangerous Driving along with the possibility of IN14 (or equivilent) in permitting someone to drive while not insured against 3rd party risks. No trader plates on the car, being driven in a manor that would be excluded on the policy etc.

    So what would your profesional opinion on this be? Is "A" just as responsible for the accident?

  • #2
    i dont think a council car park is prive land, its owned by the government.

    Comment


    • #3
      The first thing to sort out is at the time was the car park closed or open to public access, I know they have gained access, but that does not mean it was open.

      If open then it is a public place and the driver would need insurance.

      A traders policy does not require trade plates, they are to allow a vehicle to be driven on a road without an excise licence, however the trade policy will usually allow the 'trader' to drive a number of vehicles up to a specified value in the course of his business and in his care, custody, or control. I would doubt this would cover his having a play in a mates car.

      Technically the owner would commit an offence of permitting no insurance if it can be proved he failed to take reasonable steps to confirm that the driver wasnt covered by his trade policy. If he was in the vehicle at the time then it would be use rather than permit.

      The owner does not commit the offence of permit/ aide and abet dangerous driving.

      The owner is not responsible for the collision.

      I think your friend is on a sticky wicket claiming on his insurance for the damage to both cars, if the facts come to light then he could face a fraud charge, his best bet would be to tell the insurance company the full circs and let them sort it out, at the end of the day you cant have a legal drifting arena in a public car park.

      Traffic flow markings in a car park are not enforceable as on a proper road, ie you cant get done for failing to give way but they would put the onus of blame for the insurance aspect on the person that failed to conform.

      Hope that helps.
      Last edited by moeman; 3 January 2009, 07:55 AM.



      my VXR history: Arden Corsa, Astra Nurburgring, Corsa Arctic, Evoke VXR8, Black Corsa, Silver Vectra, a long weekend with an Insignia, a chilli burger and now a siggy tourer!

      Comment


      • #4
        I've only had a quick glaze over the post, because im getting a cold i think, but A would Aid/Abet B to drive with no insurance.

        Essentially, if A knew B was going to drive like an idiot, with the potential of having no insurance, then yes, he is just as much at fault.

        The problem you have, is proving in a courtroom that A knew B's intentions, and that A (beyond reasonable doubt), believed B was insured to drive it.

        In relation to the car park, its still governed by the law, as its a place to which the public have access to, through payment or otherwise.

        Comment


        • #5
          road traffic act was recently amended to say that any place that the public have access to ( such as supermarket car parks etc..) are classed as roads in the legal sense.

          i dont believe this will change if the car park was closed as if people can still get access, closed or not, its still somewhere they have physical access to. The road traffic act makes no stipulation that its only places your supposed to have access to within certain hours or whatever.

          But anyway, you were able to drive in and out of the car park, so im guessing it was probably open as i doubt they've been doing any breaking and entering (i hope)

          Furthermore, you will never establish a faulting party with this type of accident. They were both racing so i very much doubt anybody could be deemed legally at fault. rules of the racetrack and rules of the road are different things

          It would be best if both people claimed on their own insurance, but then A is in a bit of a pickle as his car wasnt insured technically at the time.

          But Driver A cant really force driver C or driver B to pay. So he will either have to get an amicable agreement with them, pay out himself, or lie ...

          only he can make that choice though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Agree with the above.

            Just a quickie Skot. You say that your mates were in a drifiting arena / competition. If this is the case i doubt the insurance would cover you for any typre of racing as thats normally part of the 'do nots' in the insurance schedule.

            Also with regards to the car park. Could it be reasonably told that it was closed, i.e., all in darkness, chains across entrance, closed signs. If this is the case then it would be classed as closed as this is how it would be preceived by a member of the public as as such they wouldd have been their illeagly and could possible face charges of tresspassing by the owner if they catch wind of this, although it is unlikely.

            Also as stated above although car parks have markings with traffic flow etc they are not enforcable by the Police, there only an aid to people using the car parks when they are open so proving right of way etc may be very hard and would have to be settled with the insurance companies i suspect.

            Also was this a drifting cometition? I think someone was watching Tokyo Drift the other night.

            Also as moeman has stated, 'A' may have permitted the use of the car with no insurance to 'B', providing 'B' hasnt got any and 'A' should have taken reasonable steps to make sure he was, i.e. see an insurance certificate. 'A' had no part in the collision himself and cannot aid / abet any driving offences in these circumstances.

            The chances of sorting this out through the insurance company with no repocussions / problems is unlikly as they have been racing, A lent the car to B possible with no insurance, B knew he had no insurance so there are a whole host of offences that could have been committed i.e, fruad, driving with no insurance, dangerous driving, tresspassing etc
            Last edited by Jay; 3 January 2009, 08:46 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              It wasn't a competition. It was a case off taking a car out to just burn around a carpark in a FWD MK1 Fiesta. However, they like to refer to it as drifting, and the car park as the drift arena. That's why I imagined an offence of permiting dangerous driving etc could apply as they knew that they were going to go out in to a public area to d**k around.

              I read on here the other month of someone who let his friend drive his car with no insurance. His friend crashed but the car owner got more points, no insurance pay out and had to pay to fix the car him / armco by the road himself etc. Would that not apply in this situation?

              Carpark is closed over night Fri - Sat and left open over night Sun - Thurs, this happened when it was left open.

              Oh and only "B" was drifting, "C" was driving out side possibly with the intention of doing it, but hadn't yet.
              Last edited by skot; 4 January 2009, 03:44 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                There isnt an offence of permit dangerous driving.

                If the car park was open then it is a public place not a road but the RTA applies in relation to licence/insurance/dangerous driving.

                I think the insurance was answered earlier but if there is no insurance in force, then the user is responsible for damages, if the owner took reasonable steps to check there was cover then I doubt he would get in bother but he has suffered in that his car is damaged. If he did not or it can be shown he knew there was no insurance then he commits an offence of permitting no insurance the driver commits the offence of using.

                I doubt the police would take much action in this case, both parties were there for the same reason and knew what would be occuring, they can try an insurance claim but I would suspect it will be voided by the insurance company.

                At the end of the day it is an expensive lesson for all concerned.



                my VXR history: Arden Corsa, Astra Nurburgring, Corsa Arctic, Evoke VXR8, Black Corsa, Silver Vectra, a long weekend with an Insignia, a chilli burger and now a siggy tourer!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by skot View Post
                  "C" came 'tearing in to the drift arena'
                  FPMSL....

                  Sorry to hear this dilemma, and I havent read all the replies... but... PMSL at 'drift arena'

                  Brings back memories over 20 years ago when we had a 'drift arena' open air car park in the snow.... happened to be right outside the local Police Station...

                  'drift arena' - lol

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You sure you didnt watch too much "Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift" the other night? Drift arena? Quality!
                    Corsa VXR Arden, 18's
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was at my local Sains Burberry 'drift arena' on Friday, really annoys me when all these old people park and push their trolleys around it full of shopping....

                      Need some Yakuza respect...

                      Last edited by spoons; 4 January 2009, 10:56 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sounds tricky to me. Two choices-out of pocket a couple of grand to fix said cars, OR try to claim on insurance and pay deductable only. Risk? Eight years in jail for insurance fraud.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Way I See This Mate Is 'A' Is A Numpty For Letting 'B' Go 'Drifting' In Their Car In The First Place With Or Without Insurance, 'B' Should've Really Been Looking Where They Were Going & Then Probably Wouldn't Have Hit 'C' Cos At The End Of The Day A Car Park Isn't A Drift Arena Is It??!! & 'C' Should Think ****** It!! 'A' & 'B' Have Been Watching Too Much Tokyo Drift & Have Now F**ked My Motor & No Matter How Much Of A Good Friend They Are Should Pay For The Repairs To 'C's Motor & Not Let 'C' Pay For The Repairs For Both Vehicles Out Of His Insurance When 'B' Hit Him In 'A' Car!!!

                          A Public/Private Car Park Being A 'Drift Arena'........ That Just Makes Me Laugh!!
                          Last edited by Rich S; 4 January 2009, 12:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rich S View Post
                            The Way I See This Mate Is 'A' Is A Numpty For Letting 'B' Go 'Drifting' In Their Car In The First Place With Or Without Insurance, 'B' Should've Really Been Looking Where They Were Going & Then Probably Wouldn't Have Hit 'C' Cos At The End Of The Day A Car Park Isn't A Drift Arena Is It??!! & 'C' Should Think ****** It!! 'A' & 'B' Have Been Watching Too Much Tokyo Drift & Have Now F**ked My Motor & No Matter How Much Of A Good Friend They Are Should Pay For The Repairs To 'C's Motor & Not Let 'C' Pay For The Repairs For Both Vehicles Out Of His Insurance When 'B' Hit Him In 'A' Car!!!

                            A Public/Private Car Park Being A 'Drift Arena'........ That Just Makes Me Laugh!!
                            That was exactly my point!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So C and skot get your **** round here and lets go and see A & B pmsl

                              Originally posted by spoons View Post
                              FPMSL....

                              Sorry to hear this dilemma, and I havent read all the replies... but... PMSL at 'drift arena'

                              Brings back memories over 20 years ago when we had a 'drift arena' open air car park in the snow.... happened to be right outside the local Police Station...

                              'drift arena' - lol
                              Did you like that then Steve it made me chuckle

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X