Car crash

corneliust

Need some advice....

I was being paid to drive a jeep for a ferry company owner. I assumed i was insured. I was coming around a corner and a car came around on the wrong side of the road because it was a very stormy day and i swerved to avoid hitting the car. I damaged the side of the jeep causing €1900 worth of damage. The owner wants me to pay for the damage. I am just wondering am i legally obliged to pay since i was employed to drive. Please help....

Losty Dublin

A better question to ask here is this; if you shouldn't pay for the damage then who should? It's your onus to ensure that you have valid insurance when you drive a vehicle. If there wasn't insurance covering you when you drove then you have broken the law.

As to if you should have to pay, consult a solicitor and obtain professional advice from him/her.

Pro Hoc Vice

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A better question to ask here is this; if you shouldn't pay for the damage then who should? It's your onus to ensure that you have valid insurance when you drive a vehicle. If there wasn't insurance covering you when you drove then you have broken the law.

As to if you should have to pay, consult a solicitor and obtain professional advice from him/her.

Well as an employee in this case the person liable would be the employer, an old concept in law of vicarious liability.

In relation to driving without insurance the original section 56 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act,


(6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.


The above was replaced in 2004


(7) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, it is a defence to the charge for the person to show that he or she was using the vehicle in compliance with the express instructions of the owner.


To the OP if the boss continues to demand you pay, consult a solicitor, also it goes without saying that if you stay working there refuse to drive until a policy of insurance is put in place.

Losty Dublin

If we can beg a question from my layman self; is the OP an actual employee of this car owner or is he a person or agent who was paid a few bob to move the car from A to B. If the latter, does this law still reasonably protect somebody in court if the worst came to the worst?

Secondly, does this not open up a legal loophole whereby uninsured drivers may actually be legal under certain limited circumstances?

infosys wrote: »

Well as an employee in this case the person liable would be the employer, an old concept in law of vicarious liability.

In relation to driving without insurance the original section 56 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act,


(6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.


The above was replaced in 2004


(7) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, it is a defence to the charge for the person to show that he or she was using the vehicle in compliance with the express instructions of the owner.


To the OP if the boss continues to demand you pay, consult a solicitor, also it goes without saying that if you stay working there refuse to drive until a policy of insurance is put in place.

corneliust

My brother is employed my the owner and he is covered by company insurance. He only works part time. The damage has been paid for by the owner but he is now looking to be reimbursed by me.

Pro Hoc Vice

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If we can beg a question from my layman self; is the OP an actual employee of this car owner or is he a person or agent who was paid a few bob to move the car from A to B. If the latter, does this law still reasonably protect somebody in court if the worst came to the worst?

Secondly, does this not open up a legal loophole whereby uninsured drivers may actually be legal under certain limited circumstances?

If the employer was not the owner of the vehicle, then the defence to no insurance may not apply, but as the OP has not said he was charged with any offence so does not seem to be an issue there.

If that was the case, the issue of vicarious liability still applies and as an employee has caused damage to a third parties car, while acting under the instruction of the employer then the employer is liable,

corneliust

i didnt crash into another car, i avoided the car and scraped along a wall. There was no other party involved.

Pro Hoc Vice

corneliust wrote: »

i didnt crash into another car, i avoided the car and scraped along a wall. There was no other party involved.

Who owned the car you drove?

corneliust

the person that was paying me owned the car. He owns a local company which my brother works for.

whippet

corneliust wrote: »

the person that was paying me owned the car. He owns a local company which my brother works for.

are you an employee of the company?

This could have bearing should it become a legal issue.

Anyway, personally I wouldn't think that someone would pursue you for the damages via the legal route if they knowingly allowed you to drive uninsured and especially if they were paying you cash in hand for a nixer (i'm assuming this is the case)

.. but morally I would say that you caused the damage - you pay for it.

... as an aside, never assume that you are insured; insurance is your responsibility.

corneliust

i am not an employee of the company but the reason for not paying is because damage was caused to my brothers vehicle by the boss and those damages were never paid for. It was cash in hand as well. Thank you for the information, it has been very helpful and has put my mind at rest slightly.

Pat Mustard

The question appears to be whether the OP would be liable to the vehicle owner for having damaged the vehicle in the accident.

I don't see how a valid insurance policy would affect liability.

If we assume that there was valid insurance cover, depending on the risks covered, perhaps the vehicle owner might have an option to claim for the damage under his own policy. Perhaps not, depending on the circumstances. In any event, I don't see how the vehicle owner would be obliged to claim under his own insurance policy. Making a claim under his own policy might be an unattractive option for him, since his premium might increase.

I would have thought that it would be open to a vehicle owner to pursue somebody if they had negligently damaged his property.