How many times have you said to the woman, child or friend to take my car and not think about it? Even if only a short road trip to the shops, you and the person providing your car, may have violated the law! Also, if the person providing the car, ready to turn the car to another, you will be responsible for damage caused by the other party if he was aware of its use or not.
If you own a car and decides to take it to another person, it is your responsibility to verify that the person you pay to have car insurance and adequate coverage includes driving other vehicles. If you are unable to make reasonable checks to verify this information, you may be liable for consequential damages to the person you borrowed for reasons, and in fact you may find yourself on the end of a police pursuit to allow an uninsured driver to use a motor vehicle in violation of § 143 of the Road Traffic Act. It is also your responsibility to ensure that the person you lend him not to allow others to lead.
In the UK, this principle has been established by the laws of the United Kingdom in 1934 in the case of v Warbey Monk and others. Mr. Warbey owner of a car that was insured drivers license for him and other members of his family. Has your friend, Mr. Knowles, who in turn lent it to May 1, Mr. de conduction. At some point during use of the car Mr. May has been involved in an accident for which he was responsible, with a car driven by Mr. Monk. Neither May nor Mr Knowles had insurance liability risks and had neither the means nor the funds to satisfy judgments against him in court. It was found that Mr. Warbey had committed a violation of the principle of subsection 1 of section 143 of the Highway Code, in parting with control of the car to someone who is not insured, so it is responsible for all damages .
It was established in court that Mr. Warbey had been informed before leaving with the car that neither Mr. Knowles and Mr. May, auto insurance coverage adequate third party and had not taken steps to remedy . The lawyer said that Warbey car accident in May was too far from the violation of the Constitution Warbey Warbey responsible for damage to third parties. The judge disagreed and Warbey was held responsible and the principle adopted by this matter remain in the laws of the United Kingdom for the current day. Until then, the law does not cover liability for car users to third parties beyond the requirements of the law, but the decision of this case requires that the owner of a car, if they have car insurance or not an additional duty to an injured party and third offer for compensation to the owner of the car which allows the vehicle to be used so that, consciously or not.
The only exception to this rule in cases of employees using a car belonging to his employer if the person driving the car were reasonable grounds for believing that the insurance was in force when they used car. It would therefore be very careful if you checked the auto insurance coverage on your own prior consent to the use of "car, and confirm, they are covered by your own car insurance or current. Otherwise, the land you in court!
If you own a car and decides to take it to another person, it is your responsibility to verify that the person you pay to have car insurance and adequate coverage includes driving other vehicles. If you are unable to make reasonable checks to verify this information, you may be liable for consequential damages to the person you borrowed for reasons, and in fact you may find yourself on the end of a police pursuit to allow an uninsured driver to use a motor vehicle in violation of § 143 of the Road Traffic Act. It is also your responsibility to ensure that the person you lend him not to allow others to lead.
In the UK, this principle has been established by the laws of the United Kingdom in 1934 in the case of v Warbey Monk and others. Mr. Warbey owner of a car that was insured drivers license for him and other members of his family. Has your friend, Mr. Knowles, who in turn lent it to May 1, Mr. de conduction. At some point during use of the car Mr. May has been involved in an accident for which he was responsible, with a car driven by Mr. Monk. Neither May nor Mr Knowles had insurance liability risks and had neither the means nor the funds to satisfy judgments against him in court. It was found that Mr. Warbey had committed a violation of the principle of subsection 1 of section 143 of the Highway Code, in parting with control of the car to someone who is not insured, so it is responsible for all damages .
It was established in court that Mr. Warbey had been informed before leaving with the car that neither Mr. Knowles and Mr. May, auto insurance coverage adequate third party and had not taken steps to remedy . The lawyer said that Warbey car accident in May was too far from the violation of the Constitution Warbey Warbey responsible for damage to third parties. The judge disagreed and Warbey was held responsible and the principle adopted by this matter remain in the laws of the United Kingdom for the current day. Until then, the law does not cover liability for car users to third parties beyond the requirements of the law, but the decision of this case requires that the owner of a car, if they have car insurance or not an additional duty to an injured party and third offer for compensation to the owner of the car which allows the vehicle to be used so that, consciously or not.
The only exception to this rule in cases of employees using a car belonging to his employer if the person driving the car were reasonable grounds for believing that the insurance was in force when they used car. It would therefore be very careful if you checked the auto insurance coverage on your own prior consent to the use of "car, and confirm, they are covered by your own car insurance or current. Otherwise, the land you in court!
