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
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?
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 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.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. TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
I see the parallel you're drawing: Why should an innocent driver have a claim on their record that they weren't responsible for?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
My suggestion is that in specific scenarios the driver's insurance pays, but without the need for the driver to be held liable.
In cases where a car is sold, the seller’s insurance isn't cancelled and the uninsured buyer causes damage resulting in the innocent seller's insurer paying out, is that added to the seller’s claim history?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff