| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Falling tree? http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7477 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JD [ Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Falling tree? |
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 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Falling tree? |
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. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Falling tree? |
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 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the Noble Lord was wrong. 
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. 
|
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: I think the Noble Lord was wrong.
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. Which is why he's a Judge and you're a "taxi" driver? 
|
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: Sussex wrote: I think the Noble Lord was wrong. 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. Which is why he's a Judge and you're a "taxi" driver? 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!!!!!!!!.
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: I think the Noble Lord was wrong.
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. 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. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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.
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is what the noble lord is saying. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grandad wrote: This is what the noble lord is saying.
Oh so he does. 
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 |
|
| Author: | TDO [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|