Exclusion to Occupiers Liability Act

rx8

Quick Summary; My car was hit on private property, (my place of work), and the company are denying responsibility on the basis of notices posted excluding parked vehicles under section 5 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.
Am I wasting my time in taking a case to the small claims court,(Damage just over 1K), or does anyone know if there is a way around this.
They admit causing the damage etc., and have even disciplined the guy who did the damage but is my only other option to sue one of my work colleagues.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

rx8 wrote: »

They admit causing the damage etc., and have even disciplined the guy who did the damage but is my only other option to sue one of my work colleagues.

If he is one of your work colleagues, I would have thought that he would approach you with an apology and an offer to reimburse you for the damage, no?

rx8

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If he is one of your work colleagues, I would have thought that he would approach you with an apology and an offer to reimburse you for the damage, no?

I did inform him of the cost of the repair, but he claims to have no money.
A likely story indeed.

Pat Mustard

Did he hit you in his own car? I suppose that he should have insurance so it can be sorted that way, if necessary. You should be able to get his insurance details from his insurance disc in the windscreen of his car.

rx8

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Did he hit you in his own car? I suppose that he should have insurance so it can be sorted that way, if necessary. You should be able to get his insurance details from his insurance disc in the windscreen of his car.

No, not his own car. A company vehicle.

ohnonotgmail

rx8 wrote: »

No, not his own car. A company vehicle.

so claim off the insurance on the company vehicle?

VonZan

Claim against the company's car insurance policy. It doesn't matter that the incident happened on their property if your vehicle was hit their insurance will cover it. Did you take photos or have any back-up for the damage? I would also submit an incident report to your manager as soon as possible as your property was damaged in your place of work.

Robbo

The Occupiers Liability Act only applies to damages stemming from the state of the premises. A car isn't part of the premises, therefore ordinary negligence principles apply.

Tell your employer that their sign doesn't have the magic powers they once thought it had.

Mr. Incognito

I suspect your employer knows little about it

The accident was reported, insurance have said they wont cover it.

You can either sue the driver or their insurance

rx8

VonZan wrote: »

Claim against the company's car insurance policy. It doesn't matter that the incident happened on their property if your vehicle was hit their insurance will cover it. Did you take photos or have any back-up for the damage? I would also submit an incident report to your manager as soon as possible as your property was damaged in your place of work.

I sent all details, photos and estimate to the company claims dept. They still deny liability citing section 5,linked above. The company (a large public transport co. ) look after their own insurance, so it's not just a case of taking details off a disc on a window.
The small claims court have allowed my claim but the company intend to contest it vigorously as they don't want the gates to open on a flood of similar claims.

ohnonotgmail

rx8 wrote: »

I sent all details, photos and estimate to the company claims dept. They still deny liability citing section 5,linked above. The company (a large public transport co. ) look after their own insurance, so it's not just a case of taking details off a disc on a window.
The small claims court have allowed my claim but the company intend to contest it vigorously as they don't want the gates to open on a flood of similar claims.

Did you try to claim off the companies liability insurance or from the insurance policy on the vehicle that hit you?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

rx8

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It is obviously a semi state that has an exemption. There is no insurance company to sue.

This, .. without naming them, they operate large yellow and blue vehicles.

ohnonotgmail

so you've clarified the situation then. If their vehicle had hit you while on the street you could surely claim from them. what difference does it make that you were on their premises?

Claw Hammer

Was your car it by a company vehicle driven by an employee while on duty going about his normal duties?

rx8

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you've clarified the situation then. If their vehicle had hit you while on the street you could surely claim from them. what difference does it make that you were on their premises?

They cite the exclusions as allowed for in section 5 of the act

rx8

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Was your car it by a company vehicle driven by an employee while on duty going about his normal duties?

Exactly, yes.

Claw Hammer

rx8 wrote: »

Exactly, yes.

The company was famously held liable in very similar circumstances. The same company also fights almost every case to the death and will force you to prove everything.

ohnonotgmail

rx8 wrote: »

Exactly, yes.

how does the occupiers liability act come into play when the damage was caused by one of their vehicles? They dont have vehicle insurance in the normal sense but but they do have a self-underwritten policy on their vehicles and it is that you should be claiming off.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how does the occupiers liability act come into play when the damage was caused by one of their vehicles? They dont have vehicle insurance in the normal sense but but they do have a self-underwritten policy on their vehicles and it is that you should be claiming off.

They don't have any policy. They self - insure. they pay all claims themselves without recourse to any insurance.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They don't have any policy. They self - insure. they pay all claims themselves without recourse to any insurance.

thats what i was getting at. So how does the occupiers liability act come into it?

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

thats what i was getting at. So how does the occupiers liability act come into it?

I never said it did.

rx8

The notices specifically exclude private cars parked on the company premises.

rx8

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The company was famously held liable in very similar circumstances. The same company also fights almost every case to the death and will force you to prove everything.

Any links to this??
Pm if needed. Thanks

Claw Hammer

rx8 wrote: »

Any links to this??
Pm if needed. Thanks

http://www.andersongallagher.ie/anderson-gallagher-in-the-news/bus-eireann-loses-appeal-after-driver-assaults-cyclist/

Here is one. There is another case.

GM228

rx8 wrote: »

Quick Summary; My car was hit on private property, (my place of work), and the company are denying responsibility on the basis of notices posted excluding parked vehicles under section 5 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.
Am I wasting my time in taking a case to the small claims court,(Damage just over 1K), or does anyone know if there is a way around this.
They admit causing the damage etc., and have even disciplined the guy who did the damage but is my only other option to sue one of my work colleagues.

Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

As Robbo pointed out, the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 applies to damage caused by the "state" of the premises:-

“danger”, in relation to any premises, means a danger due to the state of the premises

The ordinary rules of negligence applies.

It is also worth noting that an employer owes a higher duty of care to an employee over what an ordinary entrant is afforded under the general duty of care by virtue of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 which requires them to directly or indirectly as far as is reasonable make a premises safe for their employees.

And on that point note the saver from the 1995 Act, S8 (b)(iii):-

8. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting any enactment or any rule of law relating to—

(a) self-defence, the defence of others or the defence of property,

(b) any liability imposed on an occupier as a member of a particular class of persons including the following classes of persons:
(i) persons by virtue of a contract for the hire of, or for the carriage for reward of persons or property in, any vessel, vehicle, train, aircraft or other means of transport;
(ii) persons by virtue of a contract of bailment; and
(iii) employers in respect of their duties towards their employees, or

(c) any liability imposed on an occupier for a tort committed by another person in circumstances where the duty imposed on the occupier is of such a nature that its performance may not be delegated to another person.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They don't have any policy. They self - insure. they pay all claims themselves without recourse to any insurance.

Well, yes and no.

DB do have recourse to insurance, but not in the traditional terms of motor insurance.

They have a €15M SIR (subject to an overall CIE €27M SIR). Anything over that amount is covered by an external insurance provider, but their insurance is fairly cheap (on the grand scale of things) I would imagine considering the insurer could never be liable for a motor related accident as liability is legally limited to €1.22M per claim.

Marcusm

rx8 wrote: »

The notices specifically exclude private cars parked on the company premises.

Exclude damage caused to private cars or preclude the parking of private cars?

rx8

Marcusm wrote: »

Exclude damage caused to private cars or preclude the parking of private cars?

Yeah, sorry if there's confusion. It says it excludes damage done to private cars howsoever caused.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

As Robbo pointed out, the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 applies to damage caused by the "state" of the premises:-



The ordinary rules of negligence applies.

It is also worth noting that an employer owes a higher duty of care to an employee over what an ordinary entrant is afforded under the general duty of care by virtue of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 which requires them to directly or indirectly as far as is reasonable make a premises safe for their employees.

And on that point note the saver from the 1995 Act, S8 (b)(iii):-







Well, yes and no.

DB do have recourse to insurance, but not in the traditional terms of motor insurance.

They have a €15M SIR (subject to an overall CIE €27M SIR). Anything over that amount is covered by an external insurance provider, but their insurance is fairly cheap (on the grand scale of things) I would imagine considering the insurer could never be liable for a motor related accident as liability is legally limited to €1.22M per claim.

How is liability limited to 1.22m per claim?

Pat Mustard

rx8 wrote: »

No, not his own car. A company vehicle.

Your employer is being unreasonable.

I would just hand this over to a solicitor.

rx8

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your employer is being unreasonable.

I would just hand this over to a solicitor.

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

Claw Hammer

rx8 wrote: »

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

That is their form.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

How is liability limited to 1.22m per claim?

Sorry Claw Hammer, bit of a brain fart there, I'm thinking of the limited liability requirements in relation to property damage resulting from the use of a vehicle under vehicle insurance/guarantor/exempted person requirements.

Pat Mustard

rx8 wrote: »

I know, and anyone I've spoken to cannot believe it, but I know that even if I won a case against them, they would appeal it at the last minute to drag it out and avoid paying.

They are denying liability already. It seems that they don't intend to pay you at all. So if they drag it out as long as possible and pay you eventually, that will still be a better than the current situation.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

Sorry Claw Hammer, bit of a brain fart there, I'm thinking of the limited liability requirements in relation to property damage resulting from the use of a vehicle under vehicle insurance/guarantor/exempted person requirements.

Where are you getting the 1.22m from?

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Where are you getting the 1.22m from?

The Road Traffic Act 1961 S56 (as amended) allows an insurer/guarantor/exempted person set a limit on liability for property damage of €1,220,000 per motoring claim (whatever the number of victims), which is €220,000 more than the minimum limit set by EU Directive 209/103/EC.

Mr. Incognito

Give it to a solicitor.

You can already see the wasted time here.

A quick solicitors letter followed by proceedings and the prospect of a costs order against them will change their tune

You trying to DIY it and letting them no exposure to costs will not.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

The Road Traffic Act 1961 S56 (as amended) allows an insurer/guarantor/exempted person set a limit on liability for property damage of €1,220,000 per motoring claim (whatever the number of victims), which is €220,000 more than the minimum limit set by EU Directive 209/103/EC.

That doesn't mean there is a cap on liabiity. It only means the indemnifier does not have to pay out more than that. If the claim is higher the claimant can recover from the tortfeasor.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That doesn't mean there is a cap on liabiity. It only means the indemnifier does not have to pay out more than that. If the claim is higher the claimant can recover from the tortfeasor.

I never said their was a cap on liability, I was talking about their external insurers liability:-

GM228 wrote: »

Anything over that amount is covered by an external insurance provider, but their insurance is fairly cheap (on the grand scale of things) I would imagine considering the insurer could never be liable for a motor related accident as liability is legally limited to €1.22M per claim.

The point I made was their external insurer would never be liable for a motor related claim (for property damage) as their liability is limited to €1.22M per claim and anything up to €27M is covered by CIE anyway.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

I never said their was a cap on liability, I was talking about their external insurers liability:-



The point I made was their external insurer would never be liable for a motor related claim (for property damage) as their liability is limited to €1.22M per claim and anything up to €27M is covered by CIE anyway.

The insurer would be liable if they didn't limit their liability. It is permissive, not mandatory.

GM228

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The insurer would be liable if they didn't limit their liability. It is permissive, not mandatory.

True, but I believe most if not all insurers limit their liability.

Claw Hammer

GM228 wrote: »

True, but I believe most if not all insurers limit their liability.

They will all limit liability but it may not be to than exact sum.

boege

My understanding is that any car accidents in car parks are equivalent to accidents on the public road, so the normal rules apply. The other car driver is required to provide details of their car insurance.

The property owner does not get involved, unless negligence on their part can be shown. The fact that they are the same here may be causing confusion on both sides.

Just treat as a you would a 'normal' road accident. You should report to the guards and your insurers. I would advise holding any solicitor involvement until you talk to your own insurers first, as they will control any claims.

4ensic15

boege wrote: »

My understanding is that any car accidents in car parks are equivalent to accidents on the public road, so the normal rules apply. The other car driver is required to provide details of their car insurance.

That depends on whether the car park is public or private. The o/p appears to have been in a private car park.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

That depends on whether the car park is public or private. The o/p appears to have been in a private car park.

The ECJ has confirmed in Case C-162/13 Damijan Vnuk vs Zavarovalnica Triglav d.d that compulsory motor insurance cover extends to private land, Irish legislation is yet to catch up, not sure how that will affect an exempted person though?