Wimbledon school crash deaths - medical episodes & insurance

[agtlaw]

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?

Jaswant Narwal, Chief Crown Prosecutor with oversight of the Crown Prosecution Service London Homicide Unit, said:

“The death of a child is an unthinkable tragedy for any parent. On behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, I extend my sincere and heartfelt condolences to both bereaved families who have suffered the devastating loss of their children, Nuria and Selena.

“We have carefully considered this complex and sensitive case, taking into consideration all the material gathered as part of the lengthy and detailed police investigation.

“The driver of the vehicle had an epileptic seizure behind the wheel, which caused her to lose control of the vehicle which then drove into the school. There is no evidence the driver had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition.

“Because there is nothing to suggest the driver could have done anything to predict or prevent this tragedy, it is not in the public interest to pursue a criminal prosecution.

“In reaching this decision we have considered the driver’s full medical records, obtained by police, and received evidence from neurological specialists, who agreed that the driver had a seizure and that this was the first such medical episode she had experienced.

“Throughout this process we have met with the bereaved families on several occasions, to ensure they are kept informed of the case progress and to fully explain the decision we have made. Our thoughts remain with them today, as well as with the other injured victims and the wider school community upon whom this tragic incident has had a profound impact.”


Notes to editors
The driver has voluntarily surrendered her licence and, following her diagnosis, will need to be a year free of any seizures before she can reapply to the DVLA for her licence again.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/statement...

[Nezquick]

Chrisgr31 said:

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.

It is - bereavement damages under the Fatal Accidents Act are £15,120 for the loss of life. There would also perhaps be a claim for funeral expenses etc in addition but it wouldn't be a big claim.

[Forester1965]

Perhaps counter-intuitively cases involving death are typically less lucrative than permanent injury (not that it's an issue here is no liability).

Just super unfortunate the lady's first medical episode was behind the wheel next to a school. It must be an awful burden of guilt.

[ClaphamGT3]

A ghastly tragedy in which there are absolutely no winners

When tragedies strike, human nature is ever more conditioned to look for someone to blame but, in this case, nobody was; it was just an awful accident that reminds us of the fragility of life

[jeremyh1]

There is a lot to be said for the 2 tonnes mini
It is lower and it may well have been stopped by small fences bits sticking up and other traffic furniture! The LR just ploughs through

Same old argument again I live in rural Mid Devon with floods , ruts ,pot holes ,more mud and sheep shaggers. Most of us just drive normal cars with no trouble so why the Feck do you need a 4X4 in London .Does me ead in!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

VSKeith said:

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.

But if they are not responsible for compensating them, what else can they tell the parents? Sometimes terrible things happen to people that's just no one else's fault. Struck by lightning, hit by a rock dropped by an overhead eagle, whatever. Sometimes, there is just no one to claim compensation from because no one did anything wrong.

[VSKeith]

Thanks all for your responses.

I do understand that no one has done anything wrong so technically there is no liability to cover.

However I do think that in motoring cases, where physical injury to non-motorists has been caused, the driver's insurer should cover it and legislation passed to ensure compliance.

In cases where damage has been caused to property, the third party should have insurance in place to cover these freak events. If you don't have comprehensive motor insurance then hey, that's the risk you took to save money (in the apparently rare cases where it's cheaper).

I can already hear some responses along the lines of: "Why should we all pay more for our motor insurance because someone had an unpredictable episode that they weren't responsible for?"

Surely there has to be a humane case here?

How many of these tragic incidents occur each year and how much would it add to all premiums? My gut says not much, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.

I'm not saying that money can replace a loved one, least of all a child, and in this case the statutory minimum pointed out upthread is insulting. In the case of serious injury though, it will surely help.

Motor vehicles are dangerous things. We have compulsory 3rd party liability insurance for a reason.

Why not include coverage for instances where unforeseeable incapacitation of the driver causes physical harm to people?

[Forester1965]

VSKeith said:

Why not include coverage for instances where unforeseeable incapacitation of the driver causes physical harm to people?

One reason is incompatibility with civil law. We don't generally hold people liable for unforeseeable damage. You might argue people having an unforeseeable medical episode whilst driving is a common enough occurrence to justify primary legislation making them liable irrespective of negligence.

I suspect your personal secondary issue is dissatisfaction with the tariff for loss of life. In addition to a blanket liability, you'd also have to increase the tariff and/or change the basis on which claims on death are quantified.

[donkmeister]

Forester1965 said:

Pica-Pica said:

How would that work?

Quite a few new cars have avoidance systems that'll apply the brakes if they detect an imminent collision.

There's a 17 year old car parked outside my office that will apparently apply the brakes if it decides you are unconscious.

Never tested it, so don't know how sensitive/quick it is but suspect it is more a "will coast to a gentle stop if you pass out on the motorway" than "will slam the brakes on if you are careening towards pedestrians".

But the pedestrian collision avoidance stuff I've seen demonstrated probably wouldn't have helped here either as it's more about jamming the brakes on at low speeds with an emerging ped, rather than cutting the power when the throttle is pinned towards a group of peds. I.e. mitigating poor visibility and divided attention when driving around a car park or housing estate.

[VSKeith]

Forester1965 said:

VSKeith said:

Why not include coverage for instances where unforeseeable incapacitation of the driver causes physical harm to people?

One reason is incompatibility with civil law. We don't generally hold people liable for unforeseeable damage. You might argue people having an unforeseeable medical episode whilst driving is a common enough occurrence to justify primary legislation making them liable irrespective of negligence.

This is a notable theme in the responses: The law doesn’t differentiate between the individual and the insurer, i.e. the individual must be liable in order for the insurer to pay out. Could civil law not be amended to make an exception in these cases? Does someone always have to be liable?

Forester1965 said:

I suspect your personal secondary issue is dissatisfaction with the tariff for loss of life. In addition to a blanket liability, you'd also have to increase the tariff and/or change the basis on which claims on death are quantified.

Indeed, it seems that the tariff for loss of life is based on financial loss with little or no emotional component.

[Pica-Pica]

okgo said:

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?

Just how long it took expensive lawyers to find an out.

Ridiculous comment.

[Robertb]

babelfish said:

Fast and Spurious said:

Normal cars don't weigh two and a half tonnes with stupidly high power and torque.

So a 2 tonne Mini would not have had consequences????

In all probability, no, otherwise people wouldn’t need 4x4s for traversing difficult terrain.

In addition, the front end design of a 4x4 is demonstrably dangerous when involved in a collision with pedestrians, particularly children.

[qwerty360]

VSKeith said:

Thanks all for your responses.

I do understand that no one has done anything wrong so technically there is no liability to cover.

However I do think that in motoring cases, where physical injury to non-motorists has been caused, the driver's insurer should cover it and legislation passed to ensure compliance.

In cases where damage has been caused to property, the third party should have insurance in place to cover these freak events. If you don't have comprehensive motor insurance then hey, that's the risk you took to save money (in the apparently rare cases where it's cheaper).

I can already hear some responses along the lines of: "Why should we all pay more for our motor insurance because someone had an unpredictable episode that they weren't responsible for?"

Surely there has to be a humane case here?

How many of these tragic incidents occur each year and how much would it add to all premiums? My gut says not much, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.

I'm not saying that money can replace a loved one, least of all a child, and in this case the statutory minimum pointed out upthread is insulting. In the case of serious injury though, it will surely help.

Motor vehicles are dangerous things. We have compulsory 3rd party liability insurance for a reason.

Why not include coverage for instances where unforeseeable incapacitation of the driver causes physical harm to people?

Basically an argument for presumed liability (like almost all of the rest of Europe);

The idea that cars are dangerous and the act of driving creates significant risk, therefore the driver should be liable unless they can prove the other party caused the incident because by driving they created the risk.

(And no, this isn't incompatible with basic principles of english law - see damages for libel - To claim from X you need to prove that X said something and it caused harm (so equivalent would be proving the collision occurred and resulted in damage), but it can be actively defended by X proving that what was said was true (proving the other party was significantly negligent...))

IIRC there is math to suggest this could actually make insurance cheaper (Cost of lawyers time spent arguing the toss in various cases because of potential bad press when driver argues they did nothing wrong vs paying out sooner... See regular examples on twitter or even here of people arguing a cyclist/pedestrian/motorcyclist was at fault for failing to mitigate for driver error)

[Ken_Code]

jeremyh1 said:

There is a lot to be said for the 2 tonnes mini
It is lower and it may well have been stopped by small fences bits sticking up and other traffic furniture! The LR just ploughs through

Same old argument again I live in rural Mid Devon with floods , ruts ,pot holes ,more mud and sheep shaggers. Most of us just drive normal cars with no trouble so why the Feck do you need a 4X4 in London .Does me ead in!

Why do you need a convertible, a car that’s heavier than the equivalent hard top?

[jeremyh1]

Ken_Code said:

Why do you need a convertible, a car that’s heavier than the equivalent hard top?

Because the wind blows through my hair and it dont break down

I have never weighed it dont know

[Ken_Code]

jeremyh1 said:

Because the wind blows through my hair and it dont break down

I have never weighed it dont know

So it’s fine for you to have a more dangerous and heavier car than you need but you criticise others who do the same.

Understood.

[okgo]

Pica-Pica said:

Ridiculous comment.

I dunno.

Loaded people hire lawyers to get them off all sorts. Remember Mr Loophole?

[surveyor]

okgo said:

Pica-Pica said:

Ridiculous comment.

I dunno.

Loaded people hire lawyers to get them off all sorts. Remember Mr Loophole?

But not charged…. So got them off nothing.

Actually a thorough and lengthy investigation where the CPS were happy this was a first and unexpected event.

I can understand and sympathise with the families. It’s obvious that they will not be happy, but it’s the reason why ultimately justice is left to independent persons, and the pursuit of charges left to experts rather that random idiots off the net.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

VSKeith said:

However I do think that in motoring cases, where physical injury to non-motorists has been caused, the driver's insurer should cover it and legislation passed to ensure compliance.

So, you're stationary at a pedestrian crossing, with 5 school kids crossing. A lorry smashes into you at speed, pushing you into the kids, injuring/killing one or more of them. The lorry drives off, before anyone can get a reg number. Now you are the driver who's car has smashed into some kids and done awful damage. Are you happy to have a million pound plus claim on your insurance, and no claims bonus lost? I wouldn't be. Of course what happened to the kids was awful, but it wasn't my fault. I was sitting at the crossing minding my own business, when suddenly, bang, I've run over 5 kids. Much the same as this woman.

As I said above, sometimes dreadful things happen and either no one is to blame, or no one knows the details of the person that is to blame.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 27th June 21:18

[Mr Tidy]

agtlaw said:

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?

Jaswant Narwal, Chief Crown Prosecutor with oversight of the Crown Prosecution Service London Homicide Unit, said:

“The death of a child is an unthinkable tragedy for any parent. On behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, I extend my sincere and heartfelt condolences to both bereaved families who have suffered the devastating loss of their children, Nuria and Selena.

“We have carefully considered this complex and sensitive case, taking into consideration all the material gathered as part of the lengthy and detailed police investigation.

“The driver of the vehicle had an epileptic seizure behind the wheel, which caused her to lose control of the vehicle which then drove into the school. There is no evidence the driver had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition.

“Because there is nothing to suggest the driver could have done anything to predict or prevent this tragedy, it is not in the public interest to pursue a criminal prosecution.

“In reaching this decision we have considered the driver’s full medical records, obtained by police, and received evidence from neurological specialists, who agreed that the driver had a seizure and that this was the first such medical episode she had experienced.

“Throughout this process we have met with the bereaved families on several occasions, to ensure they are kept informed of the case progress and to fully explain the decision we have made. Our thoughts remain with them today, as well as with the other injured victims and the wider school community upon whom this tragic incident has had a profound impact.”


Notes to editors
The driver has voluntarily surrendered her licence and, following her diagnosis, will need to be a year free of any seizures before she can reapply to the DVLA for her licence again.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/statement...

Based on all that it was a tragic accident - not everything is someone's fault.

It's terribly sad all round, especially for the parents of the children, but I'm sure the driver is grieving too.