tinyurl.com/2w7cyb6
Last week there was an accident in centre of Glasgow resulting in 2 young female pedestrians being killed and one male pedestrian being injured.
After tests on the driver he has now been diagnosed with epilepsy and it is suspected he blacked out whilst behind the wheel.
So many thoughts on so many different levels here, did he really have no indication of this condition, are there others in the same situation? As a parent of one of the girls npthing will bring them back and at this time of the year, the hurt will be felt even more. How do they deal with the driver being relatively unhurt but their daughter gone?
I would guess if you were in this position you would be looking to blame someone but if he genuinely didn't know then is it simply a case of wrong place / wrong time?
My thoughts go out to all, and I include the driver and his family in that.
|
Walked by the accident. At that time I did not know anybody had been killed. The poor girls did not stand a chance. You can only hope that the driver had not had any of these blackouts prior to the accident and not done anything about them. I used to work with a girl that would have blackouts. The was no shaking as you would expect with someone who has epilepsy. The only was I can descirbe her blackouts is that she looked like she was day dreaming these would last from a few seconds to a minute. The condition got worse and she had to leave her job.
My thoughts are also with this family at this time.
|
Just to make matters even worse, I *think* that in cases like this where a previously unknown medical problem leads to an accident, the insurers can walk away saying it was 'an act of God'.
I may be wrong and hopefully am for the sake of those concerned.
|
'I *think* that in cases like this where a previously unknown medical problem leads to an accident, the insurers can walk away saying it was 'an act of God'.'
Could possibly be so although its not really the Insurers "walking away form it''. If no one was negligent then no one is liable to pay damages. In most cases the driver is held liable no matter what the circumstances mainly so the injured party can receive damages but there have been cases such as this where no blame could be attributed at all. The lawyers will be looking for the driver having any awareness that he had any sort of a problem.
This is why if you have financial responsibilities you should have life and personal accident insurance. You can be killed or injured without it being anybody's fault.
|
I think you are.
When it comes to third party liability claims against your motor insurance, there is no "act of god" clause.
Unless of course he knew, and it was undisclosed.
|
It's nothing to do with Act of God clause
Third party insurance will indemnify you for any damages that are awarded against you as a result of your negligence. It is possible to kill or injure someone without being negligent and thus the injured party in those circumstance will not be liable for any damages.
It's very rare as the courts go out of their way to prove that the driver was somehow liable but it is theoretically possible. Sudden death of the driver from a completely unknown and unforeseen medical condition can be such a case
|
>> Third party insurance will indemnify you for any damages that are awarded against you as
>> a result of your negligence. It is possible to kill or injure someone without being
>> negligent and thus the injured party in those circumstance will not be liable for any
>> damages.
Negligence does not have to be proven in the case of Motor insurance. The insured was causal in the accident. He killed them, due to his passing out. His insurance company will pay out.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 22 Dec 10 at 18:02
|
"Negligence does not have to be proven in the case of Motor insurance. "
You know that is complete and utter tosh Zero
|
No its not.
Nearly 100% of all motor claims are paid out WITH NO PROOF OR ADMISSION OF NEGLIGENCE
|
Years ago if the driver died, then crashed the insurer would not pay out - not now - damages are due to the injured pedestrian and small amounts to the relations of the 2 girls killed.
The payout to the parents of deceased are modest compared to dependent relatives - spouse childrenetc. In the Glasgow accident the 2 girls were said to be single.
In accidents the great fear for insurers is dependent relatives of a "high flyer/ earner" or worse still the badly injured 3rd party who will require lifelong care who also happened to be a person who is or shows the potential of "high earning ability" e.g. professional sportsman, young surgeon, business entrepreneur.
|
The fact that most insurance claims are settled without involving a court case does in no way change the fact that a motor insurance policy indemnifies a driver for his legal liability to third parties. Just read what the policy says. Only cases where liability is disputed end in court. If an insurance company does not believe the insured was negligent it will not pay out.
As I said before it is perfectly possible to kill someone with a motor vehicle without being negligent.
|
>> An example of an accident in which the driver was not liable
>>
>>
Your really going off on a kilter to dig this hole bigger.
The driver in this case we are talking about was CAUSAL. HE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
He was in no way negligent, but he was directly responsible, but through no fault of his own or negligence.
His insurance company WILL pay out.
End of.
Edit: And why did you cite a case where the other party was negligent?
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 22 Dec 10 at 20:24
|
|
You really don't like losing an argument do you Mr Z
|
You are clearly confused. Time will prove me right
|
The experience of Mr Vanker who was seriously injured by a car driven by a heart attack victim and who received no compensation from the drivers Insurers, the Halifax Insurance Co might convince you. There again it probably won't
www.brianiddon.org.uk/speeches/20081119_RoadTrafficAccidentCompensationBill.pdf
|
"Just wait and see"
I guess that as close as you come to admitting you were wrong:-)
|
|
No thats telling you they are going to pay out.
|
If the driver really did not know that he has epilepsy, then it is really very bad luck, and nothing could have been done. If he did know, though, the crash is entirely his fault, and he's a swine and a fool.
I cannot imagine anyone who knows that they are epileptic driving. The risks to both them and others would simply be too high. I know a chap who suffers from this condition - when he goes, that's it. No warning at all, it's as if a switch has been flicked. He makes an warbling sort of uluating noise (Ooooooooooooooo! as air expressed from his lungs as every muscle he has contracts and locks up solid). If he's lucky, someone in his office will grab him in the 15-30 seconds he's got before he falls off his chair, and put him on the floor. If not, he falls. If he's walking, he goes straight down, literally as stiff as a board. Last year he bashed all his teeth out and smashed his jaw, necessitating reconstructive surgery, by falling face-first onto a kerb. If he goes on the stairs, he falls straight down them. He can't drive (although he used to before his condition manifested itself), or ride a bicycle, climb up a ladder, or anything. It's a real shame, 'cos he's a nice chap.
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 22 Dec 10 at 19:21
|
Shocking, perhaps we should all get out MPs to get a bill passed to allow compensation in cases where there is no fault.
I recall a post elsewhere about driving in Thailand where a foreigner is always at fault in a motoring accident as the accident would not have happened if they were not visiting.
The same could be said for motoring accidents, if the car was not on the road there would not have been an accident!?
|
Tragic accident due to undiagnosed epilepsy - bhoywonder
