Responsiblity for debris after car accident

slade_x

I was just wondering if anyone has heard of a similar situation. I have heard a friend was recently in a car accident, they were the only person involved but it happened outside someone's property. The car rolled and landed on it's side and threw debris around including glass. None of the property was damaged but it did litter some of the outside with debris.

After the car was removed the occupants of the house later contacted the gardai complaining about some debris and wanted to have the driver fined for littering. So he returned to the scene to manually clean the debris himself, he collected it all and stored it outside the back of his home as he had no idea where to get rid of it. He didnt know how to clean up the oil though but, Suffice to say returning to the scene and cleaning up has had a dramatic negative mental impact on him.

Has anyone heard of a similar story and I was under the impression who ever was called to remove the wreck were liable to clean up as I'm sure they were, or are to be compensated by the drivers insurance?


Thanks

Lenar3556

His motor insurance would ultimately be liable for the cost.
Fire Brigades / Local Authorities typically do the roadside cleanup.

Peregrinus

This is why you have house insurance, people.

If your property is damaged in a vehicle accident (by more than just a bit of debris ending up in the garden) then your house insurer and the drivers motor insurer will slog it out as to who picks up the bill.

Do not assume that the motorist is automatically liable for the damage to your property. He may not be, if the accident was not due to his negligence. If you are looking to him (or his insurer) to compensate you then the onus of proving that the accident was caused by his negligence is on you.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is why you have house insurance, people.

If your property is damaged in a vehicle accident (by more than just a bit of debris ending up in the garden) then your house insurer and the drivers motor insurer will slog it out as to who picks up the bill.

Do not assume that the motorist is automatically liable for the damage to your property. He may not be, if the accident was not due to his negligence. If you are looking to him (or his insurer) to compensate you then the onus of proving that the accident was caused by his negligence is on you.

What difference is there in having house insurance if you are required to proof it was the other persons fault? Your home insurance won't be able to magic up evidence it was the other persons fault.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

What difference is there in having house insurance if you are required to proof it was the other persons fault? Your home insurance won't be able to magic up evidence it was the other persons fault.

If there is evidence showing that the accident was caused by the driver's negligence, the driver's insurance pays.

If there is no such evidence, your home insurance pays.

If there is no such evidence and you don't have home insurance then you pay.

In other words, in this particular context you pay home insurance premiums so that you don't have to worry about whether there is evidence of the driver's negligence or not; that becomes your insurer's problem.

Eggs For Dinner

The person who is responsible for the accident is liable for the ensuing loss to other persons or property. Unless there was an outside influence I fail to see how a driver who rolled his car would not be liable for the costs.

House insurance does cover impact from vehicles, but in this case, the accident appears to have occurred outside the boundary of the property and therefore excluded..

Peregrinus

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The person who is responsible for the accident is liable for the ensuing loss to other persons or property. Unless there was an outside influence I fail to see how a driver who rolled his car would not be liable for the costs.

I'm not talking about this incident in particular, but the general issue of damage to property consequent on a motor accident.

Not all accidents are attributable to somebody's negligence. And, if they aren't, or aren't shown to be, then the loss lies where it falls. In such a case, if the property owner doesn't have insurance, he's out of pocket.

dubrov

Peregrinus wrote:

If there is evidence showing that the accident was caused by the driver's negligence, the driver's insurance pays.

That doesn't sound right. Surely if the driver is responsible for the damage, the car insurance company pays. Negligence is irrelevant

harr

Normally around here anyway I have seen fire Brigade clean up after accident , we have a part time fire service so they get paid by how long they are out .
I have often seen them sweep up glass and using the powder or matts for oil / fuel spills even if that is on private property like someone’s garden .
If it’s debris from a crashed cars it’s normally the recovery lorry who brings that off with the crashed car.
All to be billed to car insurance company.
If no emergency services were called then up to the driver to sort out or the home owner to claim off the drivers insurance company for the clean .
Same as if you drove into someone’s wall it’s car insurance you claim off.

Peregrinus

dubrov wrote: »

That doesn't sound right. Surely if the driver is responsible for the damage, the car insurance company pays. Negligence is irrelevant

If the driver wasn't negligent, he's not responsible. That's literally how responsiblity is determined.

Irishphotodesk

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the driver wasn't negligent, he's not responsible. That's literally how responsiblity is determined.

How can a driver roll a car and not be negligent in their driving ? Cars don’t just flip over and roll without someone driving them....without the driver the car does not move (with the exception being a faulty brake system and parked on an incline ... or the 1980s kit from knight rider)

cruizer101

Would the onus not be on them to prove they weren't negligent though. I would have thought the default is they are responsible.

dubrov

Car tyre punctures through no fault of the driver, car goes out of control and clips kerb.

Surely the driver would not be negligent but still responsible?

harr

Up to insurance companies or guards to determine who is at fault . If someone drives into your property you call the guards. If an accident happens outside your property and your property is impacted you call the guards .
Get a pulse number from guards and claim if damage is significant.
Once damage is caused the driver just can’t leave an accident no matter who he feels is responsible.
House owners can clean up and repair and then claim but always better to contact insurance company first.
I have Often seen him walls / fences not fixed for months while insurance claims are sorted.

Detritus70

dubrov wrote: »

Car tyre punctures through no fault of the driver, car goes out of control and clips kerb.

Surely the driver would not be negligent but still responsible?

I would tend to agree.
One could argue that a driver was going too fast if he can't control his car after a blowout in a built-up area. It's not like he was going 120 on a motorway.
And I fail to see how a homeowner could be blamed for a car flipping on it's roof in their garden.
It's not like the driver could argue the house came out of nowhere and cut him/her off.
If you hit a stationary object you are, by definition, at fault. There is absolutely no argument against that.
Unless someone can post any newsarticle of a tree being found at fault for a car crashing into it, I will not accept any argument against it.

But going back to the motorway accidrnt scenario, if you do get a blowout on the motorway and crash into an adjacent house, what would the situation be like?
I do admit that this is probably very rare.

Peregrinus

harr wrote: »

Up to insurance companies or guards to determine who is at fault . If someone drives into your property you call the guards. If an accident happens outside your property and your property is impacted you call the guards .
Get a pulse number from guards and claim if damage is significant.
Once damage is caused the driver just can’t leave an accident no matter who he feels is responsible.
House owners can clean up and repair and then claim but always better to contact insurance company first.
I have Often seen him walls / fences not fixed for months while insurance claims are sorted.

The guards are interested in whether an offenced has been committed. They are not interested in whether the motorist has any liability to you, which is the qustion you want answered.

If the driver is prosecuted and convicted for an offence, great; that helps you considerably. But if he is not, the guards are not going to assist you in suing him to establish liablity. If his insurer doesn't concede liability, then it's up to you to prove that he is liable, if you want to get compensation from him (or his insurer).

Eggs For Dinner

dubrov wrote: »

Car tyre punctures through no fault of the driver, car goes out of control and clips kerb.

Surely the driver would not be negligent but still responsible?

If you get a puncture, causing you to crash in to me, you're paying for my damage

Lenar3556

This was a single vehicle collision, realistically it’s unlikely that anyone other than the vehicle insurer is going to be on the hook for damages.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not talking about this incident in particular, but the general issue of damage to property consequent on a motor accident.

Not all accidents are attributable to somebody's negligence. And, if they aren't, or aren't shown to be, then the loss lies where it falls. In such a case, if the property owner doesn't have insurance, he's out of pocket.

I thought that we'd stopped using the word Accident in regards to road traffic incidents/collisions, because they've found that accidents rarely happen it's usually someone's or somethings fault

slade_x

Lenar3556 wrote: »

His motor insurance would ultimately be liable for the cost.
Fire Brigades / Local Authorities typically do the roadside cleanup.

harr wrote: »

Normally around here anyway I have seen fire Brigade clean up after accident , we have a part time fire service so they get paid by how long they are out .
I have often seen them sweep up glass and using the powder or matts for oil / fuel spills even if that is on private property like someone’s garden .
If it’s debris from a crashed cars it’s normally the recovery lorry who brings that off with the crashed car.
All to be billed to car insurance company.
If no emergency services were called then up to the driver to sort out or the home owner to claim off the drivers insurance company for the clean .
Same as if you drove into someone’s wall it’s car insurance you claim off.

Thanks, That's what I assumed.


Since this thread went off on a tangent from its intended purpose for any future posters who may want to later post and don't read the original post, the purpose of the thread was not about liability for the accident, it does not matter the specifics of who was involved or even who owns the dog. It is about who is responsible for the clean up, whether if the driver themselves have to clean up debris when it spreads to a homeowners property right next to a public road when the vehicle is being recovered and removed.


To reiterate the original point. The car owner was later called by the gardai to inform him that the homeowners contacted them and wanted him fined for littering. I would have assumed the gardai should call whoever recovered the vehicle since they didn't clean any debris, they just removed the vehicle. It was the gardai that had the vehicle removed after all.

UrbanFret

The Garda normally contact the local authority who if they have no crew available (which is most of the time) get the Fire service to deal with it. At the end of the day rightly or wrongly the local authority are responsible.

slade_x

Raisins wrote: »

The homeowner is entitled to recover from the person who caused the damage. If the driver blames another car then they can join them. It’s nothing to do with the guards.

There was no other person involved. And the gardai had the vehicle removed in the first place. The gardai contacted the driver about being fined for littering, how exactly is this nothing to do with the gardai.

The homeowner is entitled to recover from the person? My question was who is responsible to clean up the debris. Those that recover the vehicle or the driver? Are there many drivers cleaning up debris after they were involved in a crash. The whole reason I chose to re iterate in the last post was that the thread is off topic from the original question asked.

Raisins wrote: »

Also the damage to the homeowners property is a separate question to the damage to the road.

There was no damage caused just some debris left on property next to the road as I mentioned in the original post and then re-iterated my intent for the thread

GM228

+1 to what Peregrinus has stated, it's not a case of you crashed into my property so you are automatically liable.

Most seem to think that the third party liability of motor insurance is an automatic blank cheque, but it is not, third party compensation from motor insurance is specifically only applicable where you are normally entitled to compensation under national civil law, in other words negligence does come into play.

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is why you have house insurance, people.

If your property is damaged in a vehicle accident (by more than just a bit of debris ending up in the garden) then your house insurer and the drivers motor insurer will slog it out as to who picks up the bill.

Do not assume that the motorist is automatically liable for the damage to your property. He may not be, if the accident was not due to his negligence. If you are looking to him (or his insurer) to compensate you then the onus of proving that the accident was caused by his negligence is on you.

Tbf,

It's highly unlikey your house or its boundaries can suddenly moved into the path of the driver.

It's quite a stretch and remote to think the driver would not be at fault

Lenar3556

GM228 wrote: »

+1 to what Peregrinus has stated, it's not a case of you crashed into my property so you are automatically liable.

Most seem to think that the third party liability of motor insurance is an automatic blank cheque, but it is not, third party compensation from motor insurance is specifically only applicable where you are normally entitled to compensation under national civil law, in other words negligence does come into play.

m

And I accept the principle of this, but not sure where you are going with it?
If I was the homeowner, and my front wall has been damaged by the this individuals car crashing into it - in what kinds of circumstances do you feel I would have a poor chance of collecting damages from his insurer?

Raisins

slade_x wrote: »

The homeowner is entitled to recover from the person? My question was who is responsible to clean up the debris. Those that recover the vehicle or the driver? Are there many drivers cleaning up debris after they were involved in a crash. The whole reason I chose to re iterate in the last post was that the thread is off topic from the original question asked.

If you want an answer that blunt of course it’s the driver. That’s the direct answer. They’re his debris and he’s responsible for putting them there. However, I really don’t think this has anything to do with the guards, whether they made a call or not. They don’t prosecute litter.

Why ask whether it’s “those that recover or the driver?”. Gardai are not under an obligation to clean roadsides. That’s obvious. As has been said on the thread it’s usually neither as it’s the council or the road operator that do this before any issue is made of it.

Lenar3556

slade_x wrote: »

Thanks, That's what I assumed.


Since this thread went off on a tangent from its intended purpose for any future posters who may want to later post and don't read the original post, the purpose of the thread was not about liability for the accident, it does not matter the specifics of who was involved or even who owns the dog. It is about who is responsible for the clean up, whether if the driver themselves have to clean up debris when it spreads to a homeowners property right next to a public road when the vehicle is being recovered and removed.


To reiterate the original point. The car owner was later called by the gardai to inform him that the homeowners contacted them and wanted him fined for littering. I would have assumed the gardai should call whoever recovered the vehicle since they didn't clean any debris, they just removed the vehicle. It was the gardai that had the vehicle removed after all.

It’s not a littering matter, and I wouldn’t be concerned about being fined for that.
The question of liability arises as to whether this can all be left of the door of his motor insurer - I.e when the guards called, give them his insurance details to pass to the aggrieved homeowner and do send my apologies.

As stated, local authority are going to responsible for the road. Recovery truck driver will do what he is asked to, and more to the point what the insurer is likely to pay him for.
Material that has ended up on private property is really between the property owner and driver (+ their insurer)

slade_x

Raisins wrote: »

Why ask whether it’s “those that recover or the driver?”. Gardai are not under an obligation to clean roadsides. That’s obvious. As has been said on the thread it’s usually neither as it’s the council or the road operator that do this before any issue is made of it.

I never insinuated its the gardai's responsibility to clean the roadside. And the reason I asked "whether it’s “those that recover or the driver?”. " Is obviously because I wanted to know who cleans up the debris after an accident. The driver themselves or the recovery company that comes to collect the vehicle, which has already been answered which is why I felt I had to reiterate the whole point of this thread since only two replies are actually on topic of what was asked




I am aware its been said who cleans the road as I replied to those 2 on topic posters. And I cant quote your original reply which did not answer the question asked now as you seem to have deleted it.

GM228

Lenar3556 wrote: »

m

And I accept the principle of this, but not sure where you are going with it?
If I was the homeowner, and my front wall has been damaged by the this individuals car crashing into it - in what kinds of circumstances do you feel I would have a poor chance of collecting damages from his insurer?

If the damage was not caused by the negligent use of the vehicle than no liability arises, just because someone damages your property does not mean they were negligent.

There must be negligence for any motor insurance claim, whilst this is assumed it can be easily rebutted. Contrary to popular belief motor insurance is not liability for damage caused by a vehicle, rather it is liability for damage caused by the negligent use of a vehicle.

slade_x

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It’s not a littering matter, and I wouldn’t be concerned about being fined for that.
The question of liability arises as to whether this can all be left of the door of his motor insurer - I.e when the guards called, give them his insurance details to pass to the aggrieved homeowner and do send my apologies.

As stated, local authority are going to responsible for the road. Recovery truck driver will do what he is asked to, and more to the point what the insurer is likely to pay him for.
Material that has ended up on private property is really between the property owner and driver (+ their insurer)

Thanks but I wasn't concerned about a littering fine, It was mentioned for context, as to why the driver went back the following day to clean up the debris himself, when it wasn't cleaned up when the vehicle was removed from the scene. I also am not concerned about any claim on his insurance as I fully expect there will be to pay for the removal of the vehicle and subsequently the clean up that never actually happened. This was my question originally

slade_x wrote: »

Has anyone heard of a similar story and I was under the impression who ever was called to remove the wreck were liable to clean up as I'm sure they were, or are to be compensated by the drivers insurance?


Thanks

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Recovery truck driver will do what he is asked to, and more to the point what the insurer is likely to pay him for.
Material that has ended up on private property is really between the property owner and driver (+ their insurer)

now this is on topic, thank you. However the road itself was also not cleaned up. all that happened was the vehicle was removed. As I have never been in an accident myself let alone one where some debris and some oil needs to be removed. I am left to assume now that had the driver not cleaned up the resulting debris would have just been left there.


Should the driver have also notified the local authority and told them where the accident was and that there was debris to be cleaned up on a public road. I notice on the roads I drive on they are not littered with debris from past car crashes so someone has to make those calls

ratracer

Imagine having a roll-over crash, and thankfully being lucky enough to not injure either yourself or anyone else, and not damage any property, but then have some curtain twitching clown ring the guards after the event because some debris, and I can only assume it would be small pieces of plastics/ glass, has landed on their driveway.

I’d say the guard would have loved to tell them to cop on and just sweep it up, but instead has had to take a big deep breath and ring your mate about it. A bit heavy handed to threaten to fine him for littering though.

Although it sounds like no fire service/ council were in attendance at the time, if there was an oil spill the guard should have informed the council roads section, who would also have cleaned the scene, so I’d say that’s the guards fault.

Del2005

GM228 wrote: »

If the damage was not caused by the negligent use of the vehicle than no liability arises, just because someone damages your property does not mean they were negligent.

There must be negligence for any motor insurance claim, whilst this is assumed it can be easily rebutted. Contrary to popular belief motor insurance is not liability for damage caused by a vehicle, rather it is liability for damage caused by the negligent use of a vehicle.

How do you hit an immovable object without being negligent?

Lenar3556

GM228 wrote: »

If the damage was not caused by the negligent use of the vehicle than no liability arises, just because someone damages your property does not mean they were negligent.

There must be negligence for any motor insurance claim, whilst this is assumed it can be easily rebutted. Contrary to popular belief motor insurance is not liability for damage caused by a vehicle, rather it is liability for damage caused by the negligent use of a vehicle.

Yes - but in practical terms, what scenarios are you thinking about whereby there has been a total absence of negligence on behalf of the driver?
I have seen insurers seek to pursue third parties to an incident who’s actions may have contributed in some way to the occurrence. But to refuse cover for damage to a third party, in a collision where there is no other vehicle involved?

Peregrinus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Yes - but in practical terms, what scenarios are you thinking about whereby there has been a total absence of negligence on behalf of the driver?
I have seen insurers seek to pursue third parties to an incident who’s actions may have contributed in some way to the occurrence. But to refuse cover for damage to a third party, in a collision where there is no other vehicle involved?

In a collision where there is no other vehicle involved, the motorist is usually at fault. But not automatically, not always — the collision could have been caused by a third party not driving a vehicle doing something that the motorist couldn't reasonably have anticipated or avoided (e.g. vandals throwing rocks off an overpass) or by some freak natural occurrence (e.g. a sinkhole appearing in the road). Etc, etc.

This isn't smart aleckry. The point is that the motorist's liablity does have to be established with actual evidence — if not, his insurers won't pay out, because they have only insured him for things for which he is legally liable. The onus is on the person claiming against the motorist to produce that evidence. It may be the case that nine time out of ten the evidence is easily available, but that's no consolation if yours is the tenth case. And in the case of a single vehicle accident in which your adjacent property is damaged, if you don't happen to be present when the accident occurs you're not a witness, and unless you can find other witnesses the only witness is the motorist, and - ahem - his evidence may not be helpful to you. So this begins to look like it could be the tenth case.

Lenar3556

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a collision where there is no other vehicle involved, the motorist is usually at fault. But not automatically, not always — the collision could have been caused by a third party not driving a vehicle doing something that the motorist couldn't reasonably have anticipated or avoided (e.g. vandals throwing rocks off an overpass) or by some freak natural occurrence (e.g. a sinkhole appearing in the road). Etc, etc.

This isn't smart aleckry. The point is that the motorist's liablity does have to be established with actual evidence — if not, his insurers won't pay out, because they have only insured him for things for which he is legally liable. The onus is on the person claiming against the motorist to produce that evidence. It may be the case that nine time out of ten the evidence is easily available, but that's no consolation if yours is the tenth case. And in the case of a single vehicle accident in which your adjacent property is damaged, if you don't happen to be present when the accident occurs you're not a witness, and unless you can find other witnesses the only witness is the motorist, and - ahem - his evidence may not be helpful to you. So this begins to look like it could be the tenth case.

Ok, good point
But on balance these are comparatively rare events and there is typically at least some degree of negligence on the part of a motorist in a single vehicle incident. Even the rocks being thrown off the overpass - should a motorist not reasonably be able to stop the car, by applying the brakes? A collision with a wall arising from this may suggest he was also travelling too fast, was not concentrating, or did not exercise reasonable skill.

Peregrinus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Ok, good point
But on balance these are comparatively rare events and there is typically at least some degree of negligence on the part of a motorist in a single vehicle incident. Even the rocks being thrown off the overpass - should a motorist not reasonably be able to stop the car, by applying the brakes? A collision with a wall arising from this may suggest he was also travelling too fast, was not concentrating, or did not exercise reasonable skill.

You're supposed to drive at a speed such that you can stop within the limit of what you can see. But I don't see how that helps if somebody drops a rock on your car as you pass under a bridge. Or, less improbably, if you have been able to see from 100m away that the road is entirely clear, but when you are 5m away a small child previously concealed by a legally parked car runs into the road and you swerve to avoid him.

Or you could think of other cases - e.g. the accident was caused by a second motorist who left the scene without being identified, so you can't sue them. In such case you can recover compensation for personal injuries from the MIBI, but not for damage to your property.

But in all these cases your property insurer will cover you. If you have property insurance.

Detritus70

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a collision where there is no other vehicle involved, the motorist is usually at fault. But not automatically, not always — the collision could have been caused by a third party not driving a vehicle doing something that the motorist couldn't reasonably have anticipated or avoided (e.g. vandals throwing rocks off an overpass) or by some freak natural occurrence (e.g. a sinkhole appearing in the road). Etc, etc.

This isn't smart aleckry. The point is that the motorist's liablity does have to be established with actual evidence — if not, his insurers won't pay out, because they have only insured him for things for which he is legally liable. The onus is on the person claiming against the motorist to produce that evidence. It may be the case that nine time out of ten the evidence is easily available, but that's no consolation if yours is the tenth case. And in the case of a single vehicle accident in which your adjacent property is damaged, if you don't happen to be present when the accident occurs you're not a witness, and unless you can find other witnesses the only witness is the motorist, and - ahem - his evidence may not be helpful to you. So this begins to look like it could be the tenth case.

I get what you're saying, but if a car is lodged in the side of my house, the driver would have to prove that it wasn't their fault, at least to my mind, otherwise he/she is liable for the damage.
I can't really imagine that, as the house owner, I would have to fill out an accident report form in order to tell my side of the story.

GM228

Detritus70 wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but if a car is lodged in the side of my house, the driver would have to prove that it wasn't their fault, at least to my mind, otherwise he/she is liable for the damage.
I can't really imagine that, as the house owner, I would have to fill out an accident report form in order to tell my side of the story.

They would not have to prove it was not their fault, rather they would have to show (on the balance of probabilities) that they were not negligent when using their vehicle.

Detritus70

GM228 wrote: »

They would not have to prove it was not their fault, rather they would have to show (on the balance of probabilities) that they were not negligent when using their vehicle.

If you drive your car into a house and you say "actually I was like, totally responsible driving down the road, it really wasn't my fault, sorry."
They will say "that's very funny. Here's the bill, please pay at the earliest opportunity or hand it over to your insurer."
I know I would

GM228

Detritus70 wrote: »

If you drive your car into a house and you say "actually I was like, totally responsible driving down the road, it really wasn't my fault, sorry."
They will say "that's very funny. Here's the bill, please pay at the earliest opportunity or hand it over to your insurer."
I know I would

Why do you think that may make it any different?

If there was no negligence the fact you ask me to pay directly or give me the option to go via my insurer does not make me any more liable to pay any bill.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

They would not have to prove it was not their fault, rather they would have to show (on the balance of probabilities) that they were not negligent when using their vehicle.

Would it not rather be for the person making the claim to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the motorist was negligent?

Eggs For Dinner

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would it not rather be for the person making the claim to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the motorist was negligent?

I would think that if the road was there for many years and it's not a regular occurrence for cars to roll over towards the house, the burden of proof is on the driver to show how he did not contribute to the accident

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would it not rather be for the person making the claim to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the motorist was negligent?

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor would apply in such a case.

Below is a link showing a driver was not negligent. prsumable if he had crashed into a wall rather than a person, the result would have been the same.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0302/60510-bus/

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would it not rather be for the person making the claim to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the motorist was negligent?

As CH noted the res ipsa loquitur principle applies - inferences warranted by circumstantial evidence, important to remember however that the burden of causally linking the damage caused by the conduct of the defendant still remains with the plaintiff (irrespective of the question of negligence).

The case linked to in the RTE report concerned a defence of automatism to show there was no negligence on the defendants part.