Where there's blame, there's a claim...

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The use of these scooters was debated on Radio 4's "You and yours" program yesterday. ( i-Player linky)

The consensus was that they should have third party liability insurance. There was even cited a case where someone who was blind (don't know how much) was sold one.

They're heavy and can do upto 8 mph forwards and backwards so are quite possible to cause serous injuries in careless hands.

There is nothing to stop me buying one. There a couple of people in my blind group who have and USE one so yup that does indeed happen.

[Stuart]

You can argue that insurance should be mandatory (and I think it probably should), but where does it end? Years ago, I was in a lift at Gatwick, the doors opened, and because I was struggling a bit to get my nan's heavy luggage out of the lift, the person behind me pushed the wheelchair he was pushing into the back of my legs. I was wearing shorts, and the footrests of the chair ran up the back of my calves, quite badly scratching them.

In that case, the "carer" who pushed the chair got some quite harsh words from me and I got out, but should the disabled person (who was probably innocent in all of this) in the chair have had insurance? After all, I could have been quite badly injured, and in this day and age, I could have sued. Actually, I suspect in that case, insurance wouldn't have covered him as the company would have claimed it was a deliberate act whether it was or not.

I think the problem here is No Win No Fee. This is a fine idea in theory, but the way it's being used, too many people are being sued for the most trivial of things. There was a programme on Channel 4 a while back (which was repeated a couple of nights ago) covering the actions a local council is taking to defend themselves against this. They had one case of a woman who sued because her son tripped and stubbed his toe on slightly raised paving slab! My mum would have made sure I was physically OK (no broken toes for instance) then told me not to worry about it and go about my business, she wouldn't have sued.

[Kymmy]

Surely if she couldn't get scooter insurance then she could have covered herself relating to third party claims??

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Surely if she couldn't get scooter insurance then she could have covered herself relating to third party claims??

From the article it seems she briefly looked into insurance, possibly phoning her home insurance or a car insurer and was told that they don't do it but specialist ones do, and most likely that the call centre staff member couldn't give the details of any.
So then she gave up and didn't try to find one of these companies.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Russ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/8607929.stm

Some people are utterly devoid of morals.

You mean people who negligently cause injury to others, then drag them through the courts instead of settling the case, then whine about how unfair it all is that they have take responsibility for their own actions and pay for the consequences?

Totally agree as always Russ

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...to-worker.html from another site

Mrs Brown’s counter claim that the incident, which happened in December 2005, was caused by a shunt after a woman on one of Morrison’s own mobility scooters had bumped into her was rejected.
The court agreed with Miss Bird’s allegation that Mrs Brown’s scooter was being driven too fast and that she had failed to watch where she was going.

The court clearly didnt believe her story. As I have said some people drive these things with no concern for pedestrians and for some reason think they have right of way when they do not.

On the face of the money claimed I think next time one nearly hits me I may forget to dodge 8 grand would be nice lol lol

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Tony.

Seems like insurance is a must for these things

There are lots of firms providing cover (according to Google)

Which is something that puzzled me. Most large insurers provide this cover? Could it be that Mrs Brown was trying to save a few bob?

The BBC article seems to lack considerable amounts of detail, especially what it was that prompted the court to apportion blame to Mrs Brown.

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Surely if she couldn't get scooter insurance then she could have covered herself relating to third party claims??

Up until recently, scooter owners could get cover attached to their household insurance included on the public liability cover.

[Neil22]

Originally Posted by Tony.

Seems like insurance is a must for these things

There are lots of firms providing cover (according to Google)

It's OK saying that but you'll see them on the road if you insure them. The old ones will be saying, "I pay my insurance so I can drive on the road".

These scooters should have warning stickers on them when sold and no one should be allowed on them without proper training.

[marky]

I think the law puts the ones that do less than 4mph in the same class as kids barbie jeeps, the faster ones should only be used on the road with a warning beacon thing.
Its OK for someone that lives in an area without the problem to pass it off, around here its a major problem, loads of old folk ramming into people or just riding out in front of traffic
People have to dive out of the way or be hit by these nutters on the pavements.

Its her own fault, she should have had insurance, or not use the thing in public.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Neil22

It's OK saying that but you'll see them on the road if you insure them. The old ones will be saying, "I pay my insurance so I can drive on the road".

These scooters should have warning stickers on them when sold and no one should be allowed on them without proper training.

I can't see how insuring them is going to cause the owners to drive on the road. They will be bound by the terms of their insurance, just like everybody else.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

I'm gonna go down the high street on Sunday and step infront of a scooter. I'm willing to put money on the old biddy driving it isnt insured

[Spectato]

An offer to pay off the debt on a monthly basis was rejected, she said, because she was told her age made it likely she would die before the money was paid.

How very touching.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Spectato

How very touching.

But come on, if a OAP owed you a large sum of money,, would you not be worried about accepting installments over a long period of time?

[Xaccers]

Am I right in thinking that there's a fund for uninsured claims, which the courts then go after the responsible party to reclaim the losses?
Could they not pay the compensation out of this, and but a charge on the woman's property so when she passess away or sells, the court gets the money back without her being made homeless?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Am I right in thinking that there's a fund for uninsured claims,

That's only for motor insurance.

which the courts then go after the responsible party to reclaim the losses?
Could they not pay the compensation out of this, and but a charge on the woman's property so when she passess away or sells, the court gets the money back without her being made homeless?

I don't think there is a legal mechanism for this, but it did cross my mind.

I am a little puzzled as to why Mrs Brown isn't counter suing the other shooter rider.