Is a Dublin Bus Ticket an insurance indemnity?

templetonpeck

I was on a Dublin Bus the other day and the cash machine was broken and so all journeys were free (yay!!:D ). But it just made me wonder:-

a. If the bus was involved in an accident leading to an injury, or if I sustained some other kind of injury on the bus would it make a difference whether you held a ticket or not if you had a legitimate claim for compensation?

b. It then led me to think, if you snuck onto the bus and didn't pay a fair would you still be entitled to make a claim even though you don't have a valid ticket?

Basically does the ticket work as an insurance indemnity, or is it simply a receipt for payment?

Jesus Wept

I've heard from someone who sued Dublin Bus when a bus he was on crashed, that additional members of joe public got on the bus after the initial crash.

templetonpeck

That doesn't surprise me at all!!! :rolleyes: It's actually why I'm wondering would Dublin Bus entertain a claim without a ticket. I would imagine Dublin Bus has met all types

Jesus Wept

I doubt they could ask for a ticket, you could easily claim (legitmately or not) that you had your ticket in your hand, and then the feckin bus crashed.

johnnyskeleton

The ticket would only be relevant if you were suing for personal injury arising from breach of contract.

If a bus crashed the more appropriate action would be in negligence. If the injury was, for example, caused by another passenger, you would still be claiming that Dublin Bus was negligent and in breach of their duty of care.

So:

a. In both situations no.

b. yes

and to the summary question, it is a receipt for payment.

Busses, like all other road users would have 3rd party insurance, and I would argue that Dublin Bus know or ought to know that people sneak onto buses, and therefore a duty of care arises.

In any case, it doesn't really matter if Dublin Bus have insurance or not, the state has deep pockets, and is unlikely to flee to another jurisdiciton.

Victor

In Spain, there are notices up in buses to the effect that your ticket is your insurance.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Busses, like all other road users would have 3rd party insurance, and I would argue that Dublin Bus know or ought to know that people sneak onto buses, and therefore a duty of care arises.

Dublin Bus / CIÉ actually self-insure up to, I think €300m per claim/incident.

In any case, it doesn't really matter if Dublin Bus have insurance or not, the state has deep pockets, and is unlikely to flee to another jurisdiciton.

lol

afatbollix

what about people with bus passes? who dont get a printed ticket?

seamus

Mandatory third-party liability insurance covers your passengers. The ticket only proves, "I was there".
Same as if you crash your car with passengers in it, they are entitled to claim from your third party insurance. There's no need to provide any additional, "This proves you are covered" documentation.

templetonpeck

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Busses, like all other road users would have 3rd party insurance, and I would argue that Dublin Bus know or ought to know that people sneak onto buses, and therefore a duty of care arises.

I am particularly interested in this 'sneak on' scenario.

By a normal jo-soap paying a fare they are accepting Dublin Bus Bye Laws etc and Dublin Bus is accepting them by issuing them with a receipt. I could therefore see how a contractual relationship exists.

But if some one doesn't pay or doesn't have a ticket it seems unfair to impose obligations on Dublin bus.

NUTLEY BOY

To answer your original question as framed I suspect that the correct answer is in the negative. CiE are not "insurers" in the strict sense of that term.

The ticket would be corroborative evidence of the existence of a contract and supportive evidence of your entitlement to be on the vehicle. I don't see how the absence of a ticket would negative the presumption that that you were there lawfully.

In the broken machine scenario I reckon that CIE would be estopped from saying you were invited on and then uninvited if there was a subsequent crash. Mind you, nothing would surprise me these days........

BTW some of those CC cameras do work and you might be caught if you were dodging !

Incidentally, do CIE insure with the private sector or do they self-insure ?

Tom Young

This is a common enough topic in moots btw.

johnnyskeleton

templetonpeck wrote:

I am particularly interested in this 'sneak on' scenario.

By a normal jo-soap paying a fare they are accepting Dublin Bus Bye Laws etc and Dublin Bus is accepting them by issuing them with a receipt. I could therefore see how a contractual relationship exists.

But if some one doesn't pay or doesn't have a ticket it seems unfair to impose obligations on Dublin bus.

There's actually an obscure case from a little known court that deals with this point. In Donoghue v. Stephenson [1932] 1 AC 562, the UK House of Lords found that a person who was harmed by the negligence of another person (in legal terms "his neighbour") could sue that other person even if a contractual relationship doesn't exist. Caused a whole lot of bother.

Essentially, everybody owes a duty to take reasonable care of people in close proximity to them (his "neighbour"). So if someone acts in a careless or haphazard way towards someone else (negligently), and it is reasonably forseeable that this behaviour would cause that other person harm, then they are liable in tort (negligence) to that other person. This is the root of most of those slip, trip and fall cases.

templetonpeck

Thank you Johnny

templetonpeck

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

To answer your original question as framed I suspect that the correct answer is in the negative. CiE are not "insurers" in the strict sense of that term.

The ticket would be corroborative evidence of the existence of a contract and supportive evidence of your entitlement to be on the vehicle. I don't see how the absence of a ticket would negative the presumption that that you were there lawfully.

In the broken machine scenario I reckon that CIE would be estopped from saying you were invited on and then uninvited if there was a subsequent crash. Mind you, nothing would surprise me these days........

BTW some of those CC cameras do work and you might be caught if you were dodging !

Incidentally, do CIE insure with the private sector or do they self-insure ?

I'm not trying to suggest that the lack of a ticket would negate the presumption that you were there lawfully. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, if you weren't there lawfully could you still make a claim? And, according to Johnny you can.

Tom Young

There's actually an obscure case from a little known court that deals with this point. In Donoghue v. Stephenson [1932] 1 AC 562, the UK House of Lords found that a person who was harmed by the negligence of another person (in legal terms "his neighbour") could sue that other person even if a contractual relationship doesn't exist. Caused a whole lot of bother.

Your humour knows no bounds! ROTFLMAO

NUTLEY BOY

There's actually an obscure case from a little known court that deals with this point. In Donoghue v. Stephenson [1932] 1 AC 562, the UK House of Lords found that a person who was harmed by the negligence of another person (in legal terms "his neighbour") could sue that other person even if a contractual relationship doesn't exist. Caused a whole lot of bother.


Your humour knows no bounds! ROTFLMAO


That case put me off ginger beer for life........

Victor

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

BTW some of those CC cameras do work and you might be caught if you were dodging !

While the older camera systems were hit and miss, all buses were fitted with a new system and there is no suggestion it doesn't work.

Incidentally, do CIE insure with the private sector or do they self-insure ?

http://www.cie.ie/about_us/pdf/CIE_06_no_pics.pdf

Any losses not covered by external insurance are charged to the consolidated profit and loss account and unsettled
amounts are included in provisions for liabilities and charges.
(A) External Insurance Cover
The Board has the following external insurance cover:
(i) Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail
Third Party Liability in excess of
(a) €5,000,000 on any one occurrence or series of occurrences arising out of any one rail transport event and
(b) €1,500,000 on any one occurrence or series of occurrences arising out of any one road transport event,
except in the case of claims subject to United States jurisdiction where the excess is US$3,300,000.

18. PROVISIONS FOR LIABILITIES AND CHARGES (continued)
(ii) Bus Átha Cliath – Dublin Bus
Third Party Liability in excess of €2,000,000 on any one occurrence or series of occurrences arising out of any one
road transport event, except in the case of claims subject to United States jurisdiction where the excess is
US$3,300,000.
(iii) Bus Éireann – Irish Bus
Third Party Liability in excess of
(a) €2,000,000 for school buses and
(b) €2,000,000 for other road transport on any one occurrence or series of occurrences arising out of any one
road transport event, except in the case of claims subject to United States jurisdiction where the excess is
US$3,300,000.
(iv) Tours Operators’ Liability for the Group with an indemnity of €2,000,000 on any one incident and in the aggregate,
subject to an excess of €250,000.
(v) Group
Third Party Liability in excess of €150,000 on any one occurrence or series of occurrences arising out of Other
Risks events, except
(a) at Ossory Road, Dublin, in the case of flood damage, where the excess is a non-ranking €1,000,000, and
(b) any other flood damage where the excess is €250,000.
(vi) In addition, each of the subsidiary companies within the Group has aggregate cover in the twelve month period,
April 2006 to March 2007, for rail and road transport third party liabilities in excess of a self insured retention of:
Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail €11,000,000
Bus Átha Cliath – Dublin Bus €15,000,000
Bus Éireann – Irish Bus €11,000,000
subject to an overall Group self insured retention of €27,000,000.
(vii) Terrorism Public Liability cover for the Group of €10,000,000, subject to excesses appropriate to the incident
category.

(viii) Group Combined Liability Insurance overall indemnity is €200,000,000 for the twelve month period, April 2006 to
March 2007, for rail and road transport Third Party and Other Risks liabilities.
(ix) All Risks, including storm damage, with an indemnity of €200,000,000 in respect of Group’s property in excess of
€1,000,000 on any one loss or series of losses, with the annual excess capped at €5,000,000 in aggregate.
(x) Terrorism indemnity cover for the Group is €200,000,000 with an excess of €500,000 in respect of railway and
road rolling stock and €150,000 in respect of other property damage, for each and every loss.
(B) Third party and employer liability claims provisions and related recoveries
Provision is made at the year-end for the estimated cost of liabilities incurred but not finalised at the balance sheet
date, including the cost of claims incurred but not yet reported (IBNR) to the Group. The estimated cost of claims
includes expenses to be incurred externally in managing claims but excludes the internal overhead of claims
management fees. The Group takes all reasonable steps to ensure that it has appropriate information regarding its
claims exposures. However, given the uncertainty in establishing claims provisions, it is likely that the final outcome
will prove to be different from the original liability established.
In calculating the estimated cost of outstanding potential liabilities the Group calculates individual file valuations to
which contingency provisions are added with the assistance of external actuarial advice. The actuary’s mathematical
modelling is generally based upon statistical analyses of historical experience, which assumes that the development
pattern of the current claims will be consistent with past experience. Allowance is made, however, for changes or
uncertainties which may create distortions in the underlying statistics or which might cause the potential liabilities to
increase or reduce when compared with the cost of previously finalised claims including, for example, changes in the
legal environment, the effects of inflation, changes in operational activity and the impact of large losses.
In estimating the cost of claims notified but outstanding, the Group has regard to the accident circumstances as
established by investigations, any information available from legal or other experts and information on court
precedents on liabilities with similar characteristics in previous periods. Exceptionally serious accidents are assessed
separately from the averages indicated by actuarial modelling.
The estimation of IBNR claims is subject to a greater degree of uncertainty than the estimated liability for claims
already notified to the Group, because of the lack of any information about the claim event except in those cases
where investigators have been called to the scenes of accidents. Claim types which have a longer development tail
and where the IBNR proportion of the total reserve is therefore high will typically display greater variations between
initial estimates and final outcomes because of the greater degree of difficulty of estimating these reserves.
Provisions for claims are calculated gross of any reinsurance recoveries where such recoveries can be reasonably
estimated. Reinsurance recoveries in respect of estimated IBNR claims are assumed to be consistent with the
historical pattern of such recoveries, adjusted to reflect changes in the nature and extent of the company’s
reinsurance programme over time. An assessment is also made of the recoverability of reinsurance recoveries
having regard to notification from the Group’s brokers of any re-insurers in run off.