Wimbledon school crash deaths - medical episodes & insurance
Discussion
Killboy said:
She's been barred from driving right?
She would not have been banned, but her license may have been withdrawn subject to medical checks. I'm sure the DVLA have a protocol for dealing with epilepsy, but it would not stop a driver from holding a licence, outright forever.https://www.gov.uk/epilepsy-and-driving
surveyor said:
Killboy said:
She's been barred from driving right?
She would not have been banned, but her license may have been withdrawn subject to medical checks. I'm sure the DVLA have a protocol for dealing with epilepsy, but it would not stop a driver from holding a licence, outright forever.https://www.gov.uk/epilepsy-and-driving
I surrendered mine back in 2007 after a (night-time) seizure, my wife had no clue what was happening, and obviously a medical emergency. Back then it required three years of not driving and establishing sleep-only seizures, before I got my licence back. Nowadays, it is only one year. Although mine was sleep-only seizures, the first came completely out of the blue, no warnings at all. My last seizure was in 2018, and because they had only ever been during sleep, I did not need to stop driving in 2018. Sad though the deaths were, I think the children’s parents are giving this woman an unfair amount of stick. Seizures can be completely unprovoked, and with no cause found (idiopathic). Also, you have absolutely no recollection of anything about the event when you come round.
Cudd Wudd said:
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.
Epilepsy is said to be a disease of the mind. It is therefore, insane 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 burden of proving that defence is on the defendant. Standard of proof is the civil standard. I.e. on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proven then that would lead to a so-called ‘special verdict’ of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is unfortunate terminology in the context of epilepsy. The Law Commission has proposed reform.
I have an automatism case pending, though non-insane automatism, which differs from insane automatism in that the prosecution is required to disprove the defence - the burden of proof on the defendant is evidential only.
agtlaw said:
Epilepsy is said to be a disease of the mind. It is therefore, insane automatism.
The burden of proving that defence is on the defendant. Standard of proof is the civil standard. I.e. on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proven then that would lead to a so-called ‘special verdict’ of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is unfortunate terminology in the context of epilepsy. The Law Commission has proposed reform.
I have an automatism case pending, though non-insane automatism, which differs from insane automatism in that the prosecution is required to disprove the defence - the burden of proof on the defendant is evidential only.
It’s only a burden if prosecuted presumably albeit I guess this is what the CPS would consider when making their decision…The burden of proving that defence is on the defendant. Standard of proof is the civil standard. I.e. on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proven then that would lead to a so-called ‘special verdict’ of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is unfortunate terminology in the context of epilepsy. The Law Commission has proposed reform.
I have an automatism case pending, though non-insane automatism, which differs from insane automatism in that the prosecution is required to disprove the defence - the burden of proof on the defendant is evidential only.
agtlaw said:
Epilepsy is said to be a disease of the mind. It is therefore, insane automatism.
The burden of proving that defence is on the defendant. Standard of proof is the civil standard. I.e. on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proven then that would lead to a so-called ‘special verdict’ of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is unfortunate terminology in the context of epilepsy. The Law Commission has proposed reform.
I have an automatism case pending, though non-insane automatism, which differs from insane automatism in that the prosecution is required to disprove the defence - the burden of proof on the defendant is evidential only.
Unfortunate terminology? It’s downright offensive. I have never heard it used though - ever.The burden of proving that defence is on the defendant. Standard of proof is the civil standard. I.e. on the balance of probabilities.
If the defence is proven then that would lead to a so-called ‘special verdict’ of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is unfortunate terminology in the context of epilepsy. The Law Commission has proposed reform.
I have an automatism case pending, though non-insane automatism, which differs from insane automatism in that the prosecution is required to disprove the defence - the burden of proof on the defendant is evidential only.
Pica-Pica said:
Unfortunate terminology? It’s downright offensive. I have never heard it used though - ever.
Another example:https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire...
Pica-Pica said:
Unfortunate terminology? It’s downright offensive. I have never heard it used though - ever.
It's not the only example like this. Up until the early 2000s the Sexual Offences Act 1956 contained the offence of having unlawful intercourse with a woman who was an idiot or imbecile. The section containing the offence was titled "Intercourse with defective".Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff