Wimbledon school crash deaths - medical episodes & insurance
Discussion
The driver of the SUV that ploughed through a Wimbledon school fence, killing two children and injuring several others will not face charges as she is deemed to have lost consciousness at the wheel due to an epileptic seizure.
It's been asserted in these parts that because insurance is technically there to cover the driver's negligence, it won't pay out for damage caused by medical incidents where there is no negligence on the driver's part.
In this case, would the injured and bereaved families receive nothing from the driver's insurer?
A horrific thing all round, but the possibility of anyone with serious injuries and bereaved families being told by the driver's insurer that, no, they are not responsible for compensating them doesn't sit well with me.
If I've misunderstood, please put me straight
It's been asserted in these parts that because insurance is technically there to cover the driver's negligence, it won't pay out for damage caused by medical incidents where there is no negligence on the driver's part.
In this case, would the injured and bereaved families receive nothing from the driver's insurer?
A horrific thing all round, but the possibility of anyone with serious injuries and bereaved families being told by the driver's insurer that, no, they are not responsible for compensating them doesn't sit well with me.
If I've misunderstood, please put me straight
It will be interesting to see if the insurance company do pay out but equally those killed I believe were children so doesnt that mean compensation will be low.
I see the parents solicitors have said the evidence can be investigated at the inquest. Presumably its taken a long time to come to this conclusion as medical tests will have been required on the driver etc to determine that she had a seizure and hadnt had them before.
I wonder ow often undiagnosed seizures at that age are?
I see the parents solicitors have said the evidence can be investigated at the inquest. Presumably its taken a long time to come to this conclusion as medical tests will have been required on the driver etc to determine that she had a seizure and hadnt had them before.
I wonder ow often undiagnosed seizures at that age are?
king stupid. For matters of such significance, proper consideration to all the evidence must be given and that takes time. There is a fund for third party injuries if the driver is not insured. I don't know, but the circumstance don't seem to apply here.
If you are injured or suffer financial loss through someone's driving, you have a claim not against the insurance company but against the driver. Her not being insured is of no consequence, the only question is whether a seizure limits/stops her liability for damages.
If you are injured or suffer financial loss through someone's driving, you have a claim not against the insurance company but against the driver. Her not being insured is of no consequence, the only question is whether a seizure limits/stops her liability for damages.
Heathwood said:
It’s an awful thing to have happened, but how has it taken a year to establish that the driver had a seizure?
It hasn't taken a year to establish the driver had a seizure, it's taken a year for the Police to carry out enquiries, submit the evidence to the CPS and for the CPS to consider the evidence and then release their decision to the public.Derek Smith said:
There is a fund for third party injuries if the driver is not insured. I don't know, but the circumstance don't seem to apply here.
If you are injured or suffer financial loss through someone's driving, you have a claim not against the insurance company but against the driver. Her not being insured is of no consequence, the only question is whether a seizure limits/stops her liability for damages.
In this case they are insured though, whether a question arises about their liability to their own insured’s costs, it does not remove their liability to a 3rd party for either damage or injury If you are injured or suffer financial loss through someone's driving, you have a claim not against the insurance company but against the driver. Her not being insured is of no consequence, the only question is whether a seizure limits/stops her liability for damages.
It's the defence of automatism.
The MIB deal with claims where the driver is uninsured or untraced, not where there is an insurer but no negligence is established.
Speaking generally, where someone has a medical episode with no prior warning, an automatism defence may arise. If there is no fault by the driver, there is nothing for the driver's insurer to indemnify. That doesn't mean an insurer won't necessarily pay out to settle a claim for other reasons, eg commercial decision where value/nature of claim is modest/sensitive and factoring in costs to investigate and defend, media interest etc.
Automatism defence can be hard to make out. Eg if driver feeling unwell that day or had warning in the journey, should they have avoided driving/stopped? Is there any medical history of note, were they managing any medical conditions appropriately etc. Again, speaking generally.
Civil standard of proof is lower and investigations can take time and cost money.
I've seen before no charges, then inquest where coroner refers back to police where concerns have arisen within the context of the inquest, and that has resulted in the CPS reviewing again.
But if genuinely no history and medical episode without any prior warning, there is no fault irrespective of how hideous the outcome of any collision is.
The MIB deal with claims where the driver is uninsured or untraced, not where there is an insurer but no negligence is established.
Speaking generally, where someone has a medical episode with no prior warning, an automatism defence may arise. If there is no fault by the driver, there is nothing for the driver's insurer to indemnify. That doesn't mean an insurer won't necessarily pay out to settle a claim for other reasons, eg commercial decision where value/nature of claim is modest/sensitive and factoring in costs to investigate and defend, media interest etc.
Automatism defence can be hard to make out. Eg if driver feeling unwell that day or had warning in the journey, should they have avoided driving/stopped? Is there any medical history of note, were they managing any medical conditions appropriately etc. Again, speaking generally.
Civil standard of proof is lower and investigations can take time and cost money.
I've seen before no charges, then inquest where coroner refers back to police where concerns have arisen within the context of the inquest, and that has resulted in the CPS reviewing again.
But if genuinely no history and medical episode without any prior warning, there is no fault irrespective of how hideous the outcome of any collision is.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff