www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/man-left-paralysed-farmer-driving-2053864
An interesting case. Effectively European Law extends the requirement for third party insurance to private land.
|
Presumably the MIB can sue the farmer to recover its losses?
|
|
In theory, yes. In practice they seldom do.
|
|
I thought that there'd been a case a few years ago that came to a similar decision. iirc it was in a similar case, a farmer knocked over a tradesman working in a barn. It was something like two years ago.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 1 Oct 18 at 06:34
|
>> Presumably the MIB can sue the farmer to recover its losses?
>>
Googling his name suggests that might be a waste of time.
Quick read suggests he was pretty lucky to get off with running the guy down, even though it was admitted the guy was there to steal.
IF (big if) he had farm / property isnurance I'd have thought that should cover liability to 3rd parties as occupier. Perhaps it excludes using motor vehicles although in a farming context that would be a little odd.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Mon 1 Oct 18 at 10:43
|
|
So is there a prosecution due for failure to insure? Makes one think about all those farms that have uninsured knackered old cars - that would be uninsurable anyway.
|
>> So is there a prosecution due for failure to insure?
>>
The thread title is misleading. Does the ruling mean that it is now an offence to keep a vehicle , or indeed any mechanically-propelled appliance, uninsured, even if used entirely on private land?
The article says he drove along a public road before driving onto his land, so would have been obliged to have insurance anyway. Does it say that he was uninsured?
Even if so, he was driving a vehicle to which insurance normally applied.
That's not the same thing as saying that an entirely off-road quad-bike, land-rover, garden tractor or suburban lawnmower now has to have insurance, and the keeper can be prosecuted if not. Does the MIB now cover all uninsured off-road machines?
Is that what you meant by "insurance requirement" CGN ?
|
It might not prove relevant to this incident, but since the early 1990s private land used regularly by the public such as supermarket and college car parks have been subjected to the bulk of the Road Traffic Acts legislation.
It's also presumably why my local supermarkets, such as Tesco and Morrison's, have full road markings and zebra crossings.
|
Its a whole load of pain and case law. Supermarkets, pubs, shopping parks, temporary event car parks are all classed as 'public places' even if payment is required. This is normally for the duration of the general use by the public.
Some offences can only be committed on a road eg No Driving Licence, No MOT and some can be committed on a road or public place eg Insurance, Careless Driving and Drink Drive.
Interestingly (or not :] ) the power to stop a vehicle by PC or Vehicle Examiner in uniform only applies to a Road.
It has been held that in some supermarket car parks the perimeter road could be classed as a 'Road' and the parking spaces classed a Public Places.
Now this geezer who has run down the errant thief (oh dear what a shame) on private land has committed an offence of assault although he was found Not Guilty of Causing GBH with Intent. This would normally be an issue for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
I'm struggling to see how its an MIB issue as it doesn't seem to be a requirement to have Insurance at that time.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Oct 18 at 00:57
|
It's not clear (to me) from that article whether the victim was actually up to no good or whether Mr Tindale just believed that he was.
The judgement states that the factual background was agreed and consequently goes pretty much straight to legal arguments without the usual detailed account of what happened. Mr Lewis is suing by a litigation friend which indicates he is incapable of instructing lawyers etc himself. Not clear whether that is a consequence of the accident or some other cause like dementia:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/2376.html
Neither is it clear that Mr Lewis will actually see the million Euro which appears to be a liability limit set out in the directive. If he was indeed a n'er do well I'd expect, particularly given his age and it's effect on future earnings and care costs, that compensation actually payable would be considerably less.
|
You are correct. Under U.K. law there is only a requirement for Third Party Insurance on public roads although the definition of what is a road has been stretched over the years by case law.
This incident however happened on private land and there was therefore no requirement for insurance, at least under UK law
However under EU law there is a requirement for every motor Insurance policy to cover liability arising from a motor vehicle anywhere, not just on the road and so the case was brought under EU law.
Now since there was in effect no valid insurance policy the MIB was brought iinto play as they provide cover for uninsured drivers in the U.K.
The question now arises: will UK insurance policies need to change to bring them into line with EU law?
|
>
>>
>> Now since there was in effect no valid insurance policy the MIB was brought iinto
>> play as they provide cover for uninsured drivers in the U.K.
>>
There are two possibilities there, not fully explained in the article;
1) someone had normal insurance for road use, but this did not extend to use off road. So as you say there was "in effect no valid insurance"
or
2) the vehicle was never used on a public road, so did not require any kind of insurance. (Not this case itself)
The latter would mean the MIB having a potential liability for an unknown number of legally uninsured and unregistered vehicles. They would have no MOT, and be under no obligation to be in road-going condition.
Also, noting that quad bikes, garden tractors, even humble self-powered lawnmowers require insurance if "driven" on a public road, does that mean the MIB role might extend even to accidents with mowers in back gardens?
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 2 Oct 18 at 09:56
|
|
It's an EU regulation which we don't comply with, so no problem after Brexit :-)
|
|
That was the case I was thinking of earlier.
|
I was very surprised to recently discover from a friend who has me listed as a named driver on his Motability insurance (for emergency purposes) that the charity only insures its vehicles for TFT.
Furthermore any other than the registered Motability driver who drives the vehicle has to be included officially on the insurance cover - even if anyone has comprehensive insurance and is able to drive other vehicles on Third Party cover with an owner's approval, it doesn't apply to the charity's vehicles.
|
>>Even if anyone has comprehensive insurance and is able to drive other vehicles on Third Party cover with an owner's approval, it doesn't apply to the charity's vehicles.
The DOC extension requires the owners approval. If Motability are the owners then they can say that nobody not on their insurance has their permission to drive the vehicle.
I don't know how the Motability schemes work.
They can't say that the insurance doesn't apply to them because that's not how it works. Its a permission to drive thing.
|
Furthermore any other than the registered Motability driver who drives the vehicle has to be
>> included officially on the insurance cover - even if anyone has comprehensive insurance and is
>> able to drive other vehicles on Third Party cover with an owner's approval, it doesn't
>> apply to the charity's vehicles.
>>
Makes sense, it's so they know who is driving their vehicles. Plenty of wee taking when it comes to motability cars with regards to relatives taking 'ownership' of them.
|
>>Makes sense, it's so they know who is driving their vehicles. Plenty of wee taking when it comes to motability cars with regards to relatives taking 'ownership' of them. >>
The person eligible for Motability vehicles doesn't have to be the driver and, in fact, named drivers can use it at other times within defined limits (Motability website details):
"The car is used by, or for the benefit of, the disabled person. This does not mean that the disabled person needs to be in the car for every journey.
"In practice, this means other named drivers in the household can use the car for shopping and other routine activities, as long as the disabled customer will benefit.
"Only named drivers listed on your Certificate of Motor Insurance can drive the car"
My late wife had a Blue Badge, but I always prefer to buy my own vehicles, so didn't take up Motability's services.
|
insurance requirement for driving on private land - Lygonos
