Supratada":1f6x0qy9 said:
twain":1f6x0qy9 said:
lewis1641":1f6x0qy9 said:
what annoys me a bit is to hear people say "it was my fault, it wasn't locked"
it is not your fault regardless of being locked or not. if it gets nicked its because somebody made the decision to take it
totally agree with this statement. surely there was a time when bicycle locks weren't even around...?!?!?
I got into a small argument with my neighbour once, when her daughter was "almost killed" because the car she was in was hit by a stolen minibus nearly an hour after she had parked the car. Obviously the mother, my neighbour, was upset but she was trying to claim off the minibus company as their vehicles were left unlocked in a locked compound. Bus thief had cut the chain on the gates. She did not agree with my postulation that the only criminal in this situation was the lad who stole the bus, and that theoretically, we should all be able to leave stuff unlocked without having it taken.
It's not quite so simple as you suggest, though - negligence can be criminal, too.
I think in that instance it would be for the courts / a jury to decide - and I suspect the reality is perhaps the deepest pockets were being considered.
Private motorists can be liable, if they allow friends / acquantancies to use their car / vehicle, without making proper checks and assurances that the driver was qualified and insured.
With potentially dangerous equipment, comes responsibility.
I'm fairly sure there's precendence for equipment or vehicles not properly secure, being considered at least partly negligent when there's been consequences of crashes when it's been stolen.
Supratada":1f6x0qy9 said:
It was a bit like being "Will" in the Inbetweeners, fundamentally correct and sound of argument, but insensitive.
Or theoretically pure, but without and real-world mitigation?
I have a flipside to your anecdote - which often doesn't reggae with most peoples' perception of insurance, liability, and / or blame.
Some years back, a driver experienced a heart problem which (from memory) caused him to lose conciousnous (and subsequently die fairly quickly - possibly fractionally before impact). Not sure it was simply a heart attack, though - but whatever it was, was spontaneous. His car veered over the road and collided with another car - causing mucho damage, and I suspect injury. I don't think there were any fatalities in the other car, though.
The driver encountering the heart problem, was insured - the driver (or passenger(s)) in the other car felt they had reasonable grounds for recovering their losses (not sure if personal injury, or just damage to the car) from heart guy - I suspect most of us would, you're driving along, suddenly a car veers from the opposite direction and side of the road and crashes into you, you'd feel like the other driver (or their insurance co) should compensate your losses (even if they died). Perfectly natural expectation.
However, heart guy encountered an instantaneous heart issue - that couldn't reasonably have been detected previously, and as such was undiagnosed, and could not have been reasonably prevented. As such, he / his estate / his car insurance, wasn't liable - he was a victim too - there was no liability, therefore no grounds to claim from his insurance and / or estate.
To all intents and purposes, it was an "Act of God" or force majeure. No negligence, no legal liability or "blame".