Employer wants me to pay for damage in a road accident

johnjoe89

Looking for some advice

I was involved in a single vehicle collision while driving a tractor for an agri contractor
there was E8000 worth of damage done to the vehicle
the owner who I was working for is demanding the money off me and claiming that I am liable for the damage
I disagree and thought that his insurance surely covers this
any advice?

Mr. Incognito

Contact your insurance company and let them and their solicitor deal with it

Thats their job

johnjoe89

is it not an issue between him and his insurance company? He is running a large business and has insurance cover for this. The only insurance I have is for my personal car. he has open driving for anyone aged over 25 which I am?

the accident was not my fault and he is trying to screw me I am well aware of that but I just want to know if he has a leg to stand on before I tell him where to go!

murrayp4

Assuming you don't own the machine- It's a matter for your employer's insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance companies are for.

johnjoe89

Thanks a mill guys appreciate that.

234

murrayp4 wrote: »

Assuming you don't own the machine- It's a matter for your employer's insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance companies are for.

One word: subrogation.

aaakev

He sounds like a feckin chancer, dont get into a discussion with him about it tell him to speak to his insurance company if he brings it up again

Marcusm

REading between the lines, is he suggesting that it was your fault or you contributed in some way to the damage, ie by negligence?

GerardKeating

murrayp4 wrote: »

Assuming you don't own the machine- It's a matter for your employer's insurance. Accidents happen, that's what insurance companies are for.

But a claim will increase the premium for the employer, which they can avoid by getting the employee to pay the claim.

aaakev

GerardKeating wrote: »

But a claim will increase the premium for the employer, which they can avoid by getting the employee to pay the claim.

What would be the point in having insurance if everyone thought like this.....

GerardKeating

aaakev wrote: »

What would be the point in having insurance if everyone thought like this.....

But I would think everyone would think like this, why claim on my policy if I can claim on someone else's.

Lantus

Mod:

Blatant legal advice, and an opinion on liability.

Lantus, you are around long enough to know not to do that.

No legal advice, and please read the charter.

aaakev

GerardKeating wrote: »

But I would think everyone would think like this, why claim on my policy if I can claim on someone else's.

But the op doesn't have a policy to claim off; he was working and driving on his employers policy.

coylemj

It was a 'single vehicle collision' but the OP (who was driving) claims he was not at fault? What did he hit and if it was a stationary object how he not be at fault?

Agree that it will be next nigh impossible for the employer to shift liability on to the OP but the circumstances sound strange.

RossieMan

sounds very strange to me. It must be obvious that it was caused by the OP's negligence. Still its the employers problem, but i'd be looking for a new summer job.

FreudianSlippers

Can I just remind everyone to please have a look at the forum charter regarding legal advice.

MagicMarker

If an employee causes damage out of sheer negligence then I see no reason why an employer can't claim off their own insurance while also pursuing the employee for any increase in premiums in a civil case. Though that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Pro Hoc Vice

MagicMarker wrote: »

If an employee causes damage out of sheer negligence then I see no reason why an employer can't claim off their own insurance while also pursuing the employee for any increase in premiums in a civil case. Though that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Vicarious liability. The employer would end up suing himself as he is liable for his servants negligent act.

Marcusm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Vicarious liability. The employer would end up suing himself as he is liable for his servants negligent act.

Is he not only liable to third parties for his servants' acts? Surely an employee would not be absolved if a duty to the employer with respect to the treatment or safekeeping of the employer's property.

Note: I'm not suggesting this is or could be applicable in the instant case.

johnjoe89

RossieMan wrote: »

sounds very strange to me. It must be obvious that it was caused by the OP's negligence. Still its the employers problem, but i'd be looking for a new summer job.

RossieMan wrote: »

sounds very strange to me. It must be obvious that it was caused by the OP's negligence. Still its the employers problem, but i'd be looking for a new summer job.

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact the operator wanted to call the gardai to report the incident but the owner insisted he did not want to do this and said there was no hassle insurance will cover it. Some weeks later the owner of the machine contacted the operator demanding money and claiming that their was no bale (which he himself saw upon arrival at the scene) on the road.

Odelay

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact the operator wanted to call the gardai to report the incident but the owner insisted he did not want to do this and said there was no hassle insurance will cover it. Some weeks later the owner of the machine contacted the operator demanding money and claiming that their was no bale (which he himself saw upon arrival at the scene) on the road.

I'd like to hear the long story.

coylemj

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact the operator wanted to call the gardai to report the incident but the owner insisted he did not want to do this and said there was no hassle insurance will cover it. Some weeks later the owner of the machine contacted the operator demanding money and claiming that their was no bale (which he himself saw upon arrival at the scene) on the road.

Aren't you 'the operator'? You said in the first post that you were driving....

johnjoe89 wrote: »

I was involved in a single vehicle collision while driving a tractor for an agri contractor

Are there lawyers involved already or why are you suddenly describing your role in the third person?

johnjoe89

coylemj wrote: »

Aren't you 'the operator'? You said in the first post that you were driving....



Are there lawyers involved already or why are you suddenly describing your role in the third person?

Why does it bother you whether the operator refers to his/herself in the first or third person?

coylemj

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Why does it bother you whether the operator refers to his/herself in the first or third person?

Because nobody refers to himself as 'the operator' unless he has a lawyer looking over his shoulder.

Cookie_Monster

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact

sounds like negligence to me, or at least dangerous driving. Should have been able to stop the vehicle before the collision.

johnjoe89

coylemj wrote: »

Because nobody refers to himself as 'the operator' unless he has a lawyer looking over his shoulder.

the operater just looked to the rear of both shoulders there were no solicitors or 'lawyers' as you put it to be seen.

the_syco

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact

Two things spring out. Firstly, why were you going around a bend at such speed that you were unable to stop? What would you have done had there been a person there? Secondly, the front axle getting blown off the tractor upon impact sounds suspect. Without the full story, I'd wonder if his insurance found you negligent, and if they advised him to chase you for costs? How long have you worked for him?

RossieMan

This sounds like "the operator" is at fault. Can fully understand the owner going after you. What if it were a car coming? Or a child walking or on a bike?

Lucky it was only a bail. Stop refering to the person as "the operator", its sounds like you've something to hide.

plodder

Where I live there's a lot of these guys careering around the roads at the moment. They are a total menace and you're taking your life in your hands venturing out on foot or a bike. It sounds to me like they are under some (weather dependent) time pressure to get stuff transported from A to B. I've come close to reporting one for dangerous driving, but he didn't even have a number plate on the trailer.

So, from a public safety pov, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the drivers taught a lesson or two. OTOH, I wouldn't like to see an employer wash his hands of all responsibility either.

Beano

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Wasn't negligence the operator rounded a corner on a country road where a silage bale had fallen off a trailer long story short the front axle was blown off the tractor upon impact the operator wanted to call the gardai to report the incident but the owner insisted he did not want to do this and said there was no hassle insurance will cover it. Some weeks later the owner of the machine contacted the operator demanding money and claiming that their was no bale (which he himself saw upon arrival at the scene) on the road.

how fast exactly would you have to be traveling to blow the front axle off a tractor by hitting a silage bale?

coylemj

johnjoe89 wrote: »

the operater just looked to the rear of both shoulders there were no solicitors or 'lawyers' as you put it to be seen.

Well if 'the operator' had been driving at a speed which would have allowed him to stop within the distance clear ahead (which the law requires him to do), 'the operator' wouldn't have collided with the silage bale.

What if it was a car broken down through no fault of the owner? If you the operator comes around a bend and hits a stationary object on the road, it's your the operator's fault.

aaakev

coylemj wrote: »

Well if 'the operator' had been driving at a speed which would have allowed him to stop within the distance clear ahead (which the law requires him to do), 'the operator' wouldn't have collided with the silage bale.

What if it was a car broken down through no fault of the owner? If you the operator comes around a bend and hits a stationary object on the road, it's your the operator's fault.

While this is true it is also the reason for having insurance and the "operator" not being personally liable

RossieMan

Insurance premium would most likely increase after an $8,000 claim.

I can completely see why the owner is following the OP for damages they caused by being negligent.

pwarren

In America you definitely would have a case. You should seek legal counsel right away.

234

aaakev wrote: »

While this is true it is also the reason for having insurance and the "operator" not being personally liable

That's why you have insurance hen driving your own vehicle: because you damage your own property through your own negligence, there is nobody else to sue.

However, when you negligently damage somebody else's property they are entitled to recover their loss from you. And if they claim on their insurance then the insurer is subrogated to their claim.

plodder

234 wrote: »

That's why you have insurance hen driving your own vehicle: because you damage your own property through your own negligence, there is nobody else to sue.

However, when you negligently damage somebody else's property they are entitled to recover their loss from you. And if they claim on their insurance then the insurer is subrogated to their claim.

Are you suggesting that employees should have their own insurance policy when driving their employer's vehicle then? I've never heard of that being the case, which suggests that employers have to suck it up, as part of the cost of doing business.

imitation

RossieMan wrote: »

Insurance premium would most likely increase after an $8,000 claim.

I can completely see why the owner is following the OP for damages they caused by being negligent.

Why, whos to say they were negligent other than your assumption, there could have been many conditions at play.Accidents happen every day, this why you go for comprehensive insurance. Very few people get sued for work disasters, Id say in pharma 8k mistakes are a weekly occurance. So why should a driver who'd probably gross 8k in 5 months be forced to pay for a situation that should be insured by the employer.

mickdw

The employer is chancing his arm.
He put you in his insured tractor. He has insurance. Let him claim of it.
I've never heard something so silly as an employee being personally liable for damages as a result of a road accident.
If the law supported that theory, I'm thinking the law would also insist that all drivers employed into businesses would carry a dedicated comprehensive policy for such an event.
I could understand if a driver was going around just knocking the corners of the tractor every day that the owner might say its coming out of your wages as a threat to improve the driving but with an accident, tell him to run and jump.

seamus

Employers insurance 100%.

There are very few scenarios where an employers insurance wouldn't cover the actions of an employee, negligent or otherwise. That's what commercial insurance does, it covers your employees mistakes.

aaakev

234 wrote: »

That's why you have insurance hen driving your own vehicle: because you damage your own property through your own negligence, there is nobody else to sue.

However, when you negligently damage somebody else's property they are entitled to recover their loss from you. And if they claim on their insurance then the insurer is subrogated to their claim.

Na man your wrong

johnjoe89

Beano wrote: »

how fast exactly would you have to be traveling to blow the front axle off a tractor by hitting a silage bale?

26.5mph

johnjoe89

the_syco wrote: »

Two things spring out. Firstly, why were you going around a bend at such speed that you were unable to stop? What would you have done had there been a person there? Secondly, the front axle getting blown off the tractor upon impact sounds suspect. Without the full story, I'd wonder if his insurance found you negligent, and if they advised him to chase you for costs? How long have you worked for him?

Can I enquire as to what your level of experience is with operating heavy goods vehicles? Limited at best I would suggest, I have been an agricultural operator for 20 years on a full time basis during which time I have never had an accident nor been out of work, on the day of the collision in question the employer refused to allow the operator call the gardai insisting that there was no need the employer told the operator that he had no issue with him and it would have happened regardless of who was driving, months passed by wages were being paid as usual until suddenly the employee changed his story. If it were negligence do you think that the employee would have been forthcoming with the wages?

Mech1

If you thought you were not insured by your employer, you wouldnt have sat in the seat, isnt that right?

mickdw

johnjoe89 wrote: »

Can I enquire as to what your level of experience is with operating heavy goods vehicles? Limited at best I would suggest, I have been an agricultural operator for 20 years on a full time basis during which time I have never had an accident nor been out of work, on the day of the collision in question the employer refused to allow the operator call the gardai insisting that there was no need the employer told the operator that he had no issue with him and it would have happened regardless of who was driving, months passed by wages were being paid as usual until suddenly the employee changed his story. If it were negligence do you think that the employee would have been forthcoming with the wages?

Is it possible that there was an issue with the insurance on the tractor on the day of the accident and the owner is now trying to recoup his repair costs in any way he can.
Imo it's either that or he thinks the operator is an idiot who will work free for him for a couple of months.

seamus

So it sounds to me like the owner of the vehicle either had inadequate insurance cover on the day, or has found out how much his premium will go up by.

There is a scenario whereby if the "employee" was actually a subcontractor, then he may not be covered to drive the tractor under the owner's normal commercial insurance, if the owner didn't also specify cover for contractors.

If that is the case, then aside from the fact that both the owner and driver could be in trouble for driving on a public road without insurance, the subcontractor may indeed be liable for the damage (same as if you borrowed your mate's car and crashed it).

If it's the case that you were subcontracting OP, then I suggest you engage yourself a solicitor to deal with this.

223vmax

Do absolutely nothing unless you get a court summons for recovery of costs. You may even get a threatening nasty letter from a solicitor but it means FA until you receive a court summons/date.

You can argue about the ins/outs, rights/wrongs all day long.

234

aaakev wrote: »

Na man your wrong

Actually I'm correct; subrogation is a basic principle of insurance. So unless you have something to back up that assertion...

plodder wrote: »

Are you suggesting that employees should have their own insurance policy when driving their employer's vehicle then? I've never heard of that being the case, which suggests that employers have to suck it up, as part of the cost of doing business.

No, not normally. But where the employee was negligent then there is nothing preventing an employer recovering from them, and nor should there be.

Insurance is a way of hedging your future liabilities, it's not there to absolve people from their mistakes. Where an employee damages company property as part of his job where no negligence was involved then clearly the employer should have to rely on his insurance; nobody else was at fault, it's just one of those things. However, where an employee is negligent then why should the employer be forced to use his insurance, increase his premium and cover the cost of an employee's negligence?

NUTLEY BOY

Not legal advice as per charter. I read the OP as a hypothetical situation.

A good authority on the subject of indemnity to an employer from an employee is Lister -v- Romford (1956) - House of Lords. Link : http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1956/6.html

Summary : Father and son were employees of same employer - son was negligent and injured father - father sued employer and won - employer issued proceedings against son for indemnity and contribution and won that issue.

Although this was an employers' liability claim the same principles should apply to the situation under discussion. I am not aware of any Irish decisions on this point.

Absent any express contractual provisions there is a general obligation on employees to bring reasonable care and skill to bear in doing their work.

NUTLEY BOY

Some quick points for clarity.

Subrogation is the right of an indemnifier to avail himself of the rights and remedies available to the indemnified party.

The right accrues when the indemnity has been provided. This is implied subrogation.

Some contracts of indemnity include an express subrogation condition. This entitles the indemnifier to start exercising subrogation rights before the indemnity is provided. You will find it in many insurance policies.

NUTLEY BOY

234 wrote: »

Actually I'm correct; subrogation is a basic principle of insurance. So unless you have something to back up that assertion...



No, not normally. But where the employee was negligent then there is nothing preventing an employer recovering from them, and nor should there be.

Insurance is a way of hedging your future liabilities, it's not there to absolve people from their mistakes. Where an employee damages company property as part of his job where no negligence was involved then clearly the employer should have to rely on his insurance; nobody else was at fault, it's just one of those things. However, where an employee is negligent then why should the employer be forced to use his insurance, increase his premium and cover the cost of an employee's negligence?

REPLY :

The driver, if negligent, is personally liable for his tort.

In the context under discussion, the driver's negligence would attach a vicarious liability to the tractor owner if the driving was in the course of employment.

Suppose that the driver had knocked down and injured a pedestrian. Any proceedings would name both the driver and the owner as co-defendants.

In theory, the owner would have rights over against the driver. In practice this would not happen as most motor insurance policies provide a personal indemnity to the driver as well as the owner thus rendering such an action entirely nugatory.

oldyouth

My understanding is, in the absence of an express condition in his terms of employment, as follows

If an authorised driver is driving in an authorised manner, the employer would have no right of recovery

If an authorised driver is driving in an unauthorised manner, he would have a right of recovery