I agree, but that may not stop someone trying to make a case There have been plenty of attempts by idiots to sue in situations where they are eventually shown to clearly have no legal argument (slipping on wet sea walls without warning notices etc.). All being well an attempt to show liability would fail, but it would be worth having some kind of cover to help pay for the legal costs if a claim was made IMHO. Court actions can sometimes be won by the side with the deepest pockets not the best case. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
You ****. It was you who went a different way than we'd agreed, then we waited around for hours. You ****. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing) `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10 `\|/` `
Yes dear, as you reiterate repeatedly. However, you must see (even on here) that a lot of people will blame anything and anybody rather than face up to their own responsibilities or failings. I can (resentfully) live with that, but when it comes to wriggling and trying to pin the blame elesewhere extending to litigation that makes me see red. Part of the implicit duty as an adult and as a solo motorcyclist is to take responsibility for your own actions, large and small, right and wrong, glorious and shameful. I reserve my right to despise those who won't.
Amen to that, but, in some situations, it could be that the person involved is prepared to face up to personal responsibility, but an insurance company is trying to find any way to wriggle out of theirs. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
I thought that was why insurance companies all say "Don't admit anything at the scene". So even if you were drunk, wearing a dark visor and had your helmet on backwards for a laugh they could still claim it wasn't your fault and save their money.
I used the same road back to the hotel as the rest of you. The only difference was that I was on my second beer when you arrived and I was bordering on getting my bike kit back on to ride back and see if anyone had done a Daz.
Indeed. We don't see Ace suing the local authority for erecting Armco on that bend. Such things are just there. If Ace's crash had been caused by the fuckwittedness of another road user though, I'd be fully behind his right to sue.
Having been there, done that and having the Tshirt and titanium wrist joint to show for it, I agree wholeheartedly. If it ain't your fault, bite 'em in the bollocks.
I meant to ask you how many tourists go over the barriers there in a year... BTW, is there any place in Santa Clara/Mountain View or thereabouts where one can rent a bike? I'd really, really like to go down Hwy 1 on a bike the next time I come over there (mid-March in case you're around).
Ok, we need to bear in mind this whole area is very very fact specific and we're talking about slightly different examples. First, you need to establish a duty of care. After about 90 years of expanding the law of negligence there's been a policy shift by the courts moving to limit when a duty of care arises. One of the main tests now is whether there is an "assumption of risk" but there are a many number of other factors. Second, there needs to be a causal connection between the breach of duty and the loss i.e. it has to be reasonably foreseeable (objectively speaking) and not too remote. Take your Alpine trip example.I'm not sure that get's off first base as I can't see a duty there. Nor can I really see a duty of care one in the TOG tours scenario (e.g. when Ash crashed, or when ginge walked out into the road) other than one relating to booking the hotel and ferry (but that's because TOG makes this all clear). But, I can see a duty of care when "organising" a track day or when organising a tour as per Krusty's mate. Going back to the point I made right at the start with respect to the track day, whether or not there's a duty depends on how you look at the intermediary doing the block-bookings and there's no obvious answer. Contractually, they're taking payment in return for a track day, so is that where the contract is? A duty of care often (not always) will arise in a contractual relationship. Now, said intermediary could say they're just an agent? Of whom? The track day organiser? Or the rider? If somehting goies seriously wrong, I can well imagine both of those other parties denying any liability for the intermedary's actions, or more likely, inactions. Ok, then the second issue is whether the loss is linked to the duty. You won't be surprised to hear that (with the benefit of hindsight), it is often not that difficult to create a link between the loss and the duty of care. E.g. crash on a track day. How did it occur? Someone dived up the inside on braking (maybe recklessly) and caused the crash. But the organiser gave a briefing telling everyone no diving up the inside, or did they? Did everyone attend? Did the organiser ensure everone attended - what if someone turned up 10 mins late and missed the briefing but was still allowed out on track. That's why the organisers give the safety briefings. All I was saying was that there was a risk. The remoteness of that risk I can't tell, but as I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing! You're right, but my concern is where said person is seriously injured (i.e may require looking after for the rest of their life). They/their spouse etc may change their tune, especially if someone's insured and there's a chance of a nice payout. Of course, as someone else alluded, the advent of the scumbag no-win, no fee brigade has not helped. [1] [1] No wn, no fee is only allowed for personal injury cases and was allowed by the government as a direct response to reducing who would be eligible for legal aid. It's perhaps not surprising that people will exists to take advantage of that.
It's a thought though. Maybe I should contact my lawyers... I don't see that one should ever need to sue on a personal level - sure, in cases of real blame the insurance companies will argue over it and the amount of any compensation claim, which is one thing, but I can't see why you'd ever need to sue. Or is it the same thing? -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing) `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10 `\|/` `
No need to sue if you *are* insured. In some cases, however, someone who thought they were covered might find that their insurance company weasels their way out by arguing they were in breach of the policy terms and conditions (undisclosed modified bike for example). If the blame can very clearly be attributed to someone else they might still fight it, but if it looks iffy they may say "sorry you weren't covered". In that scenario you might personally sue the 'person' to whom you attribute the blame . -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
You would always sue the person who you allege caused the accident/negligence etc. The insurance company will usually take it over and run it. I'm not sure why you think there would be a cause of action against the insurer directly. Also, from what you said above, you clearly don't understand the provisions of the Road traffic Acts regarding insurance. Even if the insurers can argue that there is no valid cover, "as against a third party", the insurer who has issued a certificate of insurance in respect of the vehicle at fault cannot use the insured's breach of policy terms and conditions as a reason not to pay the "third party". Of course, in such a case, the insurer could then sue the insured for breach of terms and conditions, but in reality it never happens as the insured usually has insufficient assets.
I take your point, but I don't think I said there would be a cause of action against the insurer directly. I meant someone might have to sue the 'person' to blame directly, without the aid of their insurer. They might not take it over and run with it if they can show breach of terms and conditions. Thanks for that. I confess didn't know that. So if someone were to plough an insured but undisclosed modified bike in to a bus queue their insurance will still have to pay out to the flattened pedestrian? That's good to know. In the case of a fully comprehensive policy they could refuse to pay out on the damage to your vehicle though, couldn't they? Has it never, ever happened that the insurer sues (genuine question)? -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
snip> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1827141,00.html The last paragraph is the one that appears most relevant to anything involving a degree of risk. To me it seems like common sense prevailed in the end.
Quite. A criminal sanction is in a different ball league to civil liability. Rightly so therefore, the test for criminal liability is much much higher than civil.
