Insurance cover query with Garda consequences

MrMusician18 · 02-06-2019 7:35pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its easy to pass it off as an over zealous Gard, but what would have happened if you'd hit someone and injured them?

Driving without insurance is well outside "ah sure itll be grand" territory.

Ffs, he asked for advice, not for your moralising.

If he had hit and injured someone they would've been covered by the MIBI. Yeah, he'd be in ****, but it wouldn't be anyone else's problem.

whomitconcerns · 14-06-2019 11:35am

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ffs, he asked for advice, not for your moralising.

If he had hit and injured someone they would've been covered by the MIBI. Yeah, he'd be in ****, but it wouldn't be anyone else's problem.

Well except for the person that was injured/killed. Oh and everyone else who has insurance that pays into the fund mibi uses to payout...

I'm alright Jack, at it's finest

UrbanFox · 17-06-2019 12:45pm

Quick summary ;
1. Owner's insurance did not cover driver.
2. Driver has no insurance to cover this.

Who is open to a charge of driving with no insurance ?
1. The owner.
2. The driver.

Where is the relevant law on this ?
RTA 1961 Section 56.
link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/56/enacted/en/html#sec56

IMHO on the evidence it seems that a presumption of guilt lies against both putative defendants. Many of these RTA type offences fall in to the realms of strict liability i.e. once incriminating facts are established guilt is presumed and defendant carries the burden of escaping culpability.

Although OP was definitely not covered by insurance it is not an automatic conviction for driving without insurance if he can establish reasonable doubt about the circumstances in which he came to be driving without insurance. e.g. erroneous information from the owner about insurance cover which the driver did not have proper reason to doubt or query. This would be a hard case to make but it is actually possible with some good advocacy !

It would be a real Hail Mary job but could OP argue that he was a servant of the owner as per subsection 6 of S.56 ;

(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.

Ultimately it will be for OP's solicitor to advise on how to plead.

coylemj · 17-06-2019 1:25pm

UrbanFox wrote: »

Although OP was definitely not covered by insurance it is not an automatic conviction for driving without insurance if he can establish reasonable doubt about the circumstances in which he came to be driving without insurance. e.g. erroneous information from the owner about insurance cover which the driver did not have proper reason to doubt or query. This would be a hard case to make but it is actually possible with some good advocacy !

Sorry but you're making out that 'I thought I was insured' is a good defence, it is not. Judges hear those excuses every day they sit, they don't get you anywhere except maybe a small amount of mitigation. If you're looking for a fool's pardon, you won't get one in the traffic court when it comes to driving without insurance.

And the 'servant' (of the owner) defence won't stand up. OP would need to show that he was an employee of the owner.

NUTLEY BOY · 22-06-2019 12:58pm

coylemj wrote: »

Sorry but you're making out that 'I thought I was insured' is a good defence, it is not. Judges hear those excuses every day they sit, they don't get you anywhere except maybe a small amount of mitigation. If you're looking for a fool's pardon, you won't get one in the traffic court when it comes to driving without insurance.

And the 'servant' (of the owner) defence won't stand up. OP would need to show that he was an employee of the owner.

So, are there no circumstances in which a person who unknowingly finds that they do not have motor insurance will be acquitted in the District Court ?

coylemj · 22-06-2019 5:05pm

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

So, are there no circumstances in which a person who unknowingly finds that they do not have motor insurance will be acquitted in the District Court ?

Go ahead then, quote your case.

NUTLEY BOY · 24-06-2019 11:24am

coylemj wrote: »

Go ahead then, quote your case.

I am not citing any authority.

I am simply querying the universal proposition that you offered.

GM228 · 24-06-2019 1:46pm

coylemj wrote: »

Go ahead then, quote your case.

A person who unknowingly finds that they do not have motor insurance can successfully raise such a defence (it is difficult to raise successfully however) depending on the facts.

This derives from the A.G. (Hayes) vs Downes [1959] 93 ILTR case. The Supreme Court Kinsella vs The Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland [1997] 3 IR 586 case is also worth a mention.

The 1959 case showed that the master/servant clause was not limited to employer/employee relationships - it dealt with the 1933 Act, but it had identical provisions to the 1961 Act, if you drive a vehicle to the expressed orders of the owner then you can raise the defence irrespective of the relationship.

Also, as per O'Sullivan J in the Bracken vs Commissioner of AGS [1998] IEHC 130 case in dealing with the principles of the 1997 case:-

Whilst I accept, of course, that the construction of clause 5(2) of the agreement under consideration in Kinsella gives rise to different considerations than does the construction of the statutory provisions requiring the driver of a motor vehicle to be insured, I am satisfied nonetheless that the approach of the Supreme Court in Kinsella is one which should influence my approach to the question whether the Applicant "ought to have known" on the 18th October, 1995 that in fact he was not insured. Even without the observations of the then Chief Justice in Kinsella I would have thought that it is illogical and in the teeth of common sense to expect the driver of a vehicle who is given what appears to be a perfectly valid insurance certificate covering his driving thereof to in fact anticipate that due to circumstances not known to him and not under his control the policy would be repudiated by the insurance company some sixteen months later

Henry Ford III · 24-06-2019 2:16pm

Being covered by insurance is pretty definitive - you either are or you aren't.

Arguing that you thought that you thought that you were when you actually weren't might get you some sympathy in court, but it won't shift the indemnity.

coylemj · 24-06-2019 4:39pm

GM228 wrote: »

A person who unknowingly finds that they do not have motor insurance can successfully raise such a defence (it is difficult to raise successfully however) depending on the facts.

Be my guest and suggest a set of circumstances not involving the relationship of master/servant where there would be a defence?

GM228 wrote: »

The 1959 case showed that the master/servant clause was not limited to employer/employee relationships - it dealt with the 1933 Act, but it had identical provisions to the 1961 Act, if you drive a vehicle to the expressed orders of the owner then you can raise the defence irrespective of the relationship.

If the owner is not your employer, how can he order you to drive the vehicle? To the the point where you have a valid defence aginst a charge of driving uninsured?

Insurance cover query with Garda consequences

Comments