|
puntoo - are we to take your comment seriously? There is an ancient Eskimo proverb about wrongs not making right.
|
|
|
Don't forget the displaced hairs, either. I understand that's particularly traumatic at that age and requires counselling.
Plus, of course, loss of face for looking stupid in front of your mates; the inconvenience of having to claim, etc., etc...
|
|
|
Absolutely, any good contingency fee lawyer would also add a lot more. Sounds pretty modest to me!
|
|
Though, strictly speaking, she should not have won as she ought not to have been on the roAd, being uninsured!
|
|
Despite what you might think, being uninsured is no bar to recovering damages if someone causes an accident in which you are involved. I agree that she shouldn't have been on the road but the judge felt that the accident was the other driver's fault and therefore she was perfectly entitled to recover her genuine expenses.
|
|
Maybe I'm naive, but I think that's absolutely outrageous! To be able to claim, and win, when uninsured - what on earth has gone wrong with our 'justice' system???! It really is no wonder that so many people don't bother getting insurance, and cases like this are just going to encourage that even more. (in fact mine's due soon, maybe I should take note.....;)
|
Why should you be able to claim and win when uninsured? Because you only get to claim if someone else caused the accident. You can't claim if you caused it - you're on your own; however, if you're driving harmlessly, but without insurance and someone, say, rear ends you at traffic lights, why should they get off without paying for the damage caused, simply because you didn't pay your premium.
The person causing the accident has no way of knowing that in advance and their moral responsibility is exactly the same either way. If you were to bar uninsured drivers from claiming when they don't cause the damage, you would effectively be giving a windfall to drivers who do cause accidents, or at least their insurance companies.
You will (or at least may) be punished for the potential harm caused by driving without insurance. In my opinion, the punishment for driving without insurance isn't severe enough (often only a quarter or less of the likely premium), plus points, but that's a legally and morally separate issue.
I suppose you could argue that unisured drivers' compensation could be passed on to the Motor Insurers' Bureau to reduce the element we pay for damage caused by, rather than to, uninsured drivers, or alternatively say that premiums would be reduced across the board if uninsured drivers couldn't claim.
|
That's a fair point David. I agree that the accident-causer should not be able to get away with what he/she has done, and that the fact that the other driver is uninsured should not detract from any moral responsibility.
I agree 100% that the punishment for driving uninsured is way, way too low, and, as has been said before, has got to be the reason why so many people are prepared to risk it.
And I would totally endorse the idea that any compensation awarded to the uninsured driver should passed on to the MIB, because to me it is utterly ludicrous that the uninsured driver should benefit from claiming in any way at all, bearing in mind the fact that they have absolutely no morals at all in ensuring that others might claim from them in similar but reversed circumstances.
|
|
Very good point. The bad driver is punished for his bad driving but the uninsured doesn't get the compensation. Much fairer!
|
I've floated the idea of making payments to the MIB but I have to say, on reflection, that I have a couple of post-pub problems with it.
The first is that insurance payouts are designed to put the victim back in the position they would have been in had the tort (in this case, accident) not occurred. Where the payment doesn't go to the victim, it's difficult to assess the damages or for that matter, get the victim's co-operation in assessing the level to be paid.
The second is that the uninsured driver may have a passenger who is totally unaware of the driver's status. Should that passenger also be denied compensation? Similarly, a person may be driving uninsured, believing themselves to be covered by an any driver policy or having forgotten that the policy has expired or been invalidated - in which case, denying them compensation seems to be over the top.
Thirdly, it would make driving uninsured look very much like self-insurance. People might feel less guilty about 'taking' the compensation they (via their insurer) would otherwise have to pay from the MIB, if they felt that they were also 'giving' the benefit of any accident they might be involved in.
Finally, insurance payouts often benefit the state indirectly, for instance in providing money for medical care or just giving someone the cash to buy a new car so they can still get to work and not go on benefit. The value of the payout might be useful to society as a whole, but in some (though certainly not all) cases we would do better if we actually did invest that money in the uninsured accident victim, rather than spreading the money around across all drivers.
|
Must be a drop of good stuff they serve at your local!
Whilst I have some sympathy with innocent victims in all this I'm afraid I am a bit more authoritarian. Its a question of responsibilities; something people seem to be well short of these days. As they say everyone knows their rights but not their responsibilities.
If you have not got insurance then you should not be on the road plain and simple. If you get hit then thats just tough, if someone in the car is hurt well take issue with the driver. Its their responsibility if they are driving about uninsured. You break the law you have no rights.
Its uninsured drivers that are pushing up premiums of all the law abiding motorists. Money for health care? Yes private health care and consultants reports for spurious whiplash claims. The legal profession doesn't do too badly out of all this either. They can buy a new car with their compensation and run around uninsured in that as well! ( And I dont mean the legal profession!!!!!) The NHS at present which we all pay into gets not a penny.
There must be a detterent so that even the - " I don't give a flying ......... about society or its laws, I'll do as I please brigade" have second thoughts about what they do and the consequences
Fullchat
|
The second is that the uninsured driver may have a passenger who is totally unaware of the driver's status. Should that passenger also be denied compensation? Similarly, a person may be driving uninsured, believing themselves to be covered by an any driver policy or having forgotten that the policy has expired or been invalidated - in which case, denying them compensation seems to be over the top.
But they would have a separate claim against the culpable driver anyway - their claim would not be dependent upon any claim by the uninsured driver whose compensation could still be paid to MIB.
|
|
You are going to make one hell of a good lawyer, David! You're confusing me so much that I could be persuaded to agree with any or all of your points! Even though the post-pub ones seem to be arguing with the sober ones!
|
|
|
|
