Claiming for accident during a test drive?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NUTLEY BOY

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

NUTLEY BOY

Victor wrote: »

SNIP....

I imagine it would be uncomfortable to claim in front of a judge, that one didn't inspect the vehicle's roadworthyness before driving it.

I think that this proposition goes too far. It is unreasonable to expect a lay man to be able to discern this degree of technical adequacy.

What would be uncomfortable in front of a judge would be to appear for a defendant trying to defeat a case on this line of argument.

challengemaster

ken wrote: »

I have 3rd party with Liberty and recently got a new car. I rang them up to see what I could do as I was collecting the car late in the evening after they were closed. The lady told me that nearly all policies have a provision for you to drive other cars as long as,
1.You are insured on a car.
2.The other car is insured by the owner.
3.The car is not in your name.

Basically she told me I was ok to drive it home and sort out the change over the next morning.

That's actually wrong, never trust anything they say over the phone.

The following is from the Liberty policy documentation

If your certificate of insurance says so, we
will also cover you, the policyholder, for
your liability to other people while you are
driving any other private motor car which
you do not own or have not hired under a
hire-purchase or lease agreement, as long
as:
1. the vehicle is not owned by your
employer or hired to them under a
hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2. you currently hold a full European
Union (EU) licence;
3. the use of the vehicle is covered in the
certificate of insurance;
4. cover is not provided by any other
insurance;
5. you have the owner’s permission to
drive the vehicle;
6. the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition;
and
7. you still have the insured vehicle and it
has not been damaged beyond
cost-effective repair.
This extension applies while being driven
within the territorial limits and only to
private passenger vehicles. It does not
include:
• vans;
• car-vans;
• jeep-type vehicles with no seats in the
back; or
• vans adapted to carry passengers

It says nothing about the other car being required to be insured by the owner.

NUTLEY BOY

challengemaster wrote: »

That's actually wrong, never trust anything they say over the phone. SNIP....

Couldn't agree more.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes there is, as Fred point out. But it's important to realise that, just because the owner can be convicted of this criminal offence, that doesn't mean he has any civil liability to a person injured by the negligence of a driver of the uninsured car. This doesn't entitle the accident victim to sue the owner for damages.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I would have no discomfort at all. I am completely unqualified to assess the roadworthiness of a car.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I think that this proposition goes too far. It is unreasonable to expect a lay man to be able to discern this degree of technical adequacy.

But aren't all motorists responsible for the vehicles they drive?

Sure, obscurity may be a partial defence to a criminal case, but not to a civil case.

Peregrinus

I don't think there's any rule of strict liability as regards the condition of the car. If you're suing the driver, you're suing him in negligence. You won't recover unless you can show that he is negligent. I don't think that, without special facts, it's negligent for the driver in this instance to rely on the superior knowledge and expertise (both in general, and with regard to this specific car) of the dealer who is offering the car for sale.

Chemical Byrne

Victor wrote: »

But aren't all motorists responsible for the vehicles they drive?

Sure, obscurity may be a partial defence to a criminal case, but not to a civil case.

Yes the driver would be responsible but there is obviously no specific requirement for them to be able to technically audit the vehicle themselves. In the general case they would be fulfilling their responsibility possibly by having their mechanic inspect the car on a periodic basis and rely on his expert knowledge.

In the test drive crash scenario, the driver has relied on the expert knowledge of the dealer and taken his word that the vehicle was roadworthy.

Personally in my opinion, if the test driven car leaves the road with a baldy tyre and it would be reasonable to suggest the tyre was a factor in causing the accident, and there are no obvious additional causes (excessive speed, phone, alcohol etc), then the dealer would be liable.

What defence could the dealer mount? At the end of the day the dealer allowed a customer to drive an unroadworthy car out and it went off the road on a turn on a wet day. Pretty clear cut in my opinion.