Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 12:23 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Falling tree?
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
A cab driver while driving too fast was hit by a falling tree, which in turn injured his passenger. Is the driver negligent?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Falling tree?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
A cab driver while driving too fast was hit by a falling tree, which in turn injured his passenger. Is the driver negligent?

Yes.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Falling tree?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
A cab driver while driving too fast was hit by a falling tree, which in turn injured his passenger. Is the driver negligent?

Yes.


In the House of Lords appeal case of, Chester v Afshar, Lord Walker made this analagy about negligence.

Similarly, if a taxi-driver drives too fast and the cab is hit by a falling tree, injuring the passenger, it is sheer coincidence. The driver might equally well have avoided the tree by driving too fast, and the passenger might have been injured if the driver was observing the speed limit.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
I think the Noble Lord was wrong. :D

If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been in the tree position, so to speak, but if he hadn't been breaking the law this incident wouldn't have happened.

So it was his fault, 100%, in my noble opinion. :lol:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 5003
Location: Lincoln
Sussex wrote:
I think the Noble Lord was wrong. :D

If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been in the tree position, so to speak, but if he hadn't been breaking the law this incident wouldn't have happened.

So it was his fault, 100%, in my noble opinion. :lol:


Which is why he's a Judge and you're a "taxi" driver? :lol: :lol: :wink:

_________________
Former taxi driver


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
jimbo wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I think the Noble Lord was wrong. :D

If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been in the tree position, so to speak, but if he hadn't been breaking the law this incident wouldn't have happened.

So it was his fault, 100%, in my noble opinion. :lol:


Which is why he's a Judge and you're a "taxi" driver? :lol: :lol: :wink:


Jimbo Will you stop swearing on a Monday and telling porkies, Sussex is not a noble he is a peasant, why because he is a PH driver.
Nobles drive taxis, peasant's drive PH, we have to keep up our appearances what!!!!!!!!. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
Sussex wrote:
I think the Noble Lord was wrong. :D

If he hadn't been speeding then he wouldn't have been in the tree position, so to speak, but if he hadn't been breaking the law this incident wouldn't have happened.

So it was his fault, 100%, in my noble opinion. :lol:


I should read what the noble Lord said again Sussex. As I read it the Lord was saying that the incident with the tree COULD have happened whether the car had been speeding or not and in this analogy it was a COINCIDENCE that it had happened but this did not mean that the speeding caused it to happen.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
I should read what the noble Lord said again Sussex. As I read it the Lord was saying that the incident with the tree COULD have happened whether the car had been speeding or not and in this analogy it was a COINCIDENCE that it had happened but this did not mean that the speeding caused it to happen.

If the car driver wasn't breaking the law, by speeding, then he would not have been hit by the tree.

The tree wasn't waiting for him to come around the corner, it happened when it happened. So if he wasn't speeding he wouldn't have been in the position he was when the tree came down.

However if he was driving normally and got hit by the tree then IMO he would have a sound defence.

As I said the noble Lord was wrong. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
This is what the noble lord is saying.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
This is what the noble lord is saying.

Oh so he does. Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
lol it appears the comments of the Noble Lord have created some controversy? All good stuff and anything that provokes debate has got to be a good thing.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
I'm inclined to agree with the Lord and grandad here.

However, where I disagree with them is that if a tree fell down at random then a speeding driver would have less chance of avoiding it than a slower driver, but I suppose it depends on the facts of the particular scenario.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20858
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
a tree falling is an "act of god" in terms of an insurance claim so driver negligence would be hard to prove BUT I agree with the above comments in hazardous conditions where an event such as a tree falling could take place a driver should be excercising due caution in his/her driving


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 221 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group