maximum allowed length of time between malicious car accident and taking legal actio

In this case, the rear axle of the car was broken by the crash. This is a real event. The crash was caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver. I wont go any further.

How much passage of time can elapse before the statute of limitations takes effect or it's too late for the driver's son to take legal action against the malicious party? They don't have much funds.

coylemj

What do you have you in mind when you talk about 'legal action'..... report it to the Gardai as a crime or sue the guy in a civil action?

Civil action

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

In this case, the rear axle of the car was broken by the crash. This is a real event. The crash was caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver. I wont go any further.

How much passage of time can elapse before the statute of limitations takes effect or it's too late for the driver's son to take legal action against the malicious party? They don't have much funds.

6 years.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

In this case, the rear axle of the car was broken by the crash. This is a real event. The crash was caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver. I wont go any further.

How much passage of time can elapse before the statute of limitations takes effect or it's too late for the driver's son to take legal action against the malicious party? They don't have much funds.

How would the driver's son be taking action? Did he own the car that was damaged?

^^^^not helpful to the thread.

Peregrinus

It's very relevant. If the driver's son is thinking about bringing proceedings, we need to know what his cause of action would be, since the limitation period that applies will depend on exactly what his cause of action is. Simply being the son of a person who was driving a car that was damaged by the action of another person doesn't, in itself, give him any right to sue anyone, so for him to have a claim at all there must be additional facts that you're not telling us, and the answer to your question may depend on those facts.

For example, if his claim is that he was injured in the incident (as a passenger in the car, for example) then that's an action for personal injury, for which the limitation period is two years, not six. But rather than just have us guess what kind of a claim he might be in a position to bring and then offer answers based on that guess, why don't you just tell us what claim he wants to bring?

hullaballoo

Also relevant is the age of the son.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

s.

For example, if his claim is that he was injured in the incident (as a passenger in the car, for example) then that's an action for personal injury, for which the limitation period is two years, not six.?

Personal injury is not a cause of action, negligence is. In this case the cause of action would be assault since the injury resulted from a deliberate action. The limitation period for assault is 6 years.

Del2005

Deleted User wrote: »

In this case, the rear axle of the car was broken by the crash. This is a real event. The crash was caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver. I wont go any further.

How much passage of time can elapse before the statute of limitations takes effect or it's too late for the driver's son to take legal action against the malicious party? They don't have much funds.

If the other party doesn't have much funds there's no point in taking a civil action, you can't get blood from a stone, and proving they interfered with the driver will be difficult.

Why can't the son use insurance as that's what it's for?

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Personal injury is not a cause of action, negligence is. In this case the cause of action would be assault since the injury resulted from a deliberate action. The limitation period for assault is 6 years.

You have a point. The two-year limitation period applies to an action claiming damages in respect of personal injuries to a person caused by negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. So if the claim is for personal injuries caused by an assault, the limitation period is six years.

But all we are told is that the action was "caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver". We don't know what the interference was. It would only be an assault if it was an intentional act, causing reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.

And we're also back to the point that it's the driver who was interfered with, but the driver's son who wants to sue. Even if the act of interference was an assault on the driver, it may not have been an assault on the son; any injuries that resulted to him might be seen as arising out of negligence rather than assault.

In short, there isn't enough information in the OP to know what action the son wants to bring, much less what limitation period would apply to it.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have a point. The two-year limitation period applies to an action claiming damages in respect of personal injuries to a person caused by negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. So if the claim is for personal injuries caused by an assault, the limitation period is six years.

But all we are told is that the action was "caused by another passenger in the car, by interfering with the driver". We don't know what the interference was. It would only be an assault if it was an intentional act, causing reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.

And we're also back to the point that it's the driver who was interfered with, but the driver's son who wants to sue. Even if the act of interference was an assault on the driver, it may not have been an assault on the son; any injuries that resulted to him might be seen as arising out of negligence rather than assault.

In short, there isn't enough information in the OP to know what action the son wants to bring, much less what limitation period would apply to it.

If the son was a passenger in the car at the time of the interference there would be an indirect assault. It would be an attack not only on the driver but all others in the car and indeed the vicinity of the car.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the son was a passenger in the car at the time of the interference there would be an indirect assault. It would be an attack not only on the driver but all others in the car and indeed the vicinity of the car.

Depends on the nature of the "interference" with the driver, and on the surrounding circumstances, surely?

We can conjecture that anything that put the driver in fear of immediate harmful contact would also have put the other passengers in a similar fear, but why should we conjecture when the OP can just tell us? Which he will, if he wants a useful answer to his question.

spurious

Would the age of the 'interferer' not also be relevant?

For example a child could distract or interfere with the driver, but could you then sue the child?

GM228

spurious wrote: »

Would the age of the 'interferer' not also be relevant?

For example a child could distract or interfere with the driver, but could you then sue the child?

In short, no.

Peregrinus

And, if you could, what would be the point? He's very unlikely to be insured, or to have anything in the way of assets against which a judgment could be enforced.

spurious

Peregrinus wrote:

And, if you could, what would be the point? He's very unlikely to be insured, or to have anything in the way of assets against which a judgment could be enforced.

Coukd you sue his/her parents?*


*I've no interest in suing any children's parents. This thread has just made me think about responsibilities. If I am legally responsible for any damage caused by my dog, is there something similar regarding actions of a child?

GM228

spurious wrote: »

Coukd you sue his/her parents?

Same answer as last time - no (though there are a few exceptions, such as if the parent had a hand in the childs act or specifically told them how to act for example)