The OP is not asking about driving with a 'bad foot', he is asking about driving with a broken bone in his foot. And it is quite a leap to compare that to driving with a stubbed toe!.
I don't believe anyone is saying he can't drive with a broken foot, just that, for obvious reasons, he shouldn't.
I disagree. The OP DOES have a bad foot. It has a broken bone within it. A matter of semantics, I feel.
And you've chosen to overlook the manner in which I used the bruised toe analogy.... I said, in connection with notification to the insurer, that it was a matter of degree ... a bruised toe at one end of the scale and a Heipelvectomy at the other. In the case of the former, then notifying the insurer is rather unnecessary wheras the latter is an instance where the insurer would likely want to know.
And I still don't see why the OP "shouldn't" drive an auto with a bad left foot.
Edited by KB. on 05/08/2019 at 14:31
|