Legal advice needed. Who is liable for damages, driver or owner?

[Eng_dave]

Okay I got hit not to long ago by a kid in a White van, (company Van). Been in touch with the Boss but looks like he's not going to pay who do I take to court the driver or the van owner?

[JimO]

Okay I got hit not to long ago by a kid in a White van, (company Van). Been in touch with the Boss but looks like he's not going to pay who do I take to court the driver or the van owner?

i say the driver

[skidMark]

i say the driver

Driver is liable for the damage it was thier actions, no different to if he had borrowed it off a friend and crashed...

Surely if it was a company van it was insured? so contact thier insurance co...

If it was not insured or the driver was not insured for the vehicle but other people were etc take the driver to court...

there is a free law phone number you can ring you get an hours free legal advice or whatever.... if you contact your insurance company they will actually handle all this for you.

[Jantar]

You sue both. Driver as first defendant who caused your loss, and the owner as second defendant who required the driver to operate a vehicle without adequate insurance.

[Max Preload]

It's purely the responsibility of the driver.

I assume you're uninsured yourself?

[skidMark]

You sue both. Driver as first defendant who caused your loss, and the owner as second defendant who required the driver to operate a vehicle without adequate insurance.

I don't see the relevance given insurance is not complusary in New Zealand...

[davereid]

The driver is responsible, regardless of vehicle ownership.

If you have 3rd party or better cover, you may not have to get involved.

My third-party cover with AMI states that if I am in an accident where I am not at fault, and can identify the other party, AMI will pay for my repairs, and get the money from the other driver. I am sure most 3rd party policies will be the same.

[Jantar]

I don't see the relevance given insurance is not complusary in New Zealand...

No, but when you drive your own vehicle you have the option to insure it or not. When you drive a works vehicle you have the expectation that the owner will insure it as you cannot arrange insurance on someones else's vehicle that you may use as part of your job.

The fact the driver was required to drive an uninsured vehicle as part of his job does move part of the risk to the owner. It is quite possible that a Judge would award only 50% against the driver and instruct the claimant to sue the owner for the remainder. Thus it is simpler if the owner is named as second defendant straight up.

[Tank]

Ive had this happen to my car (when stationary) - I argued with the company and they paid for all damages. However if the guy is not willing to pay (from your post) - I would take a small claims against the driver.

As an aside - the guy who hit my car was an arse (total fucken pig actually), called me boy and told me that he was going to discuss my attitude with my boss whom he had a meeting with (me in Jandals and T-Shirt). The look on his face when I walked into their meeting and he found out I was a Director and "my boss" actually worked for me was priceless.

But - the most fun was when I cancelled the order with his boss on the grounds that we couldn't work with the guy was the most satisfying.

BTW - what company was it - sad to hear that they won't step up and sort the issue.

[Supermac Jr]

No, but when you drive your own vehicle you have the option to insure it or not. When you drive a works vehicle you have the expectation that the owner will insure it as you cannot arrange insurance on someones else's vehicle that you may use as part of your job.

The fact the driver was required to drive an uninsured vehicle as part of his job does move part of the risk to the owner. It is quite possible that a Judge would award only 50% against the driver and instruct the claimant to sue the owner for the remainder. Thus it is simpler if the owner is named as second defendant straight up.

I think its against the company - it's a company vehicle, driven (presumably) in company time, on (presumably) company duty, by a company employee, on (presumably) company deligated authority.

The company will (presumably) be in a better position to pay...

Hope this doesnt turn into a nightmare

[Max Preload]

No, but when you drive your own vehicle you have the option to insure it or not. When you drive a works vehicle you have the expectation that the owner will insure it as you cannot arrange insurance on someones else's vehicle that you may use as part of your job.

'Option' being the operative word. Insurance is not (nor should it be) compulsory.

The fact the driver was required to drive an uninsured vehicle as part of his job does move part of the risk to the owner. It is quite possible that a Judge would award only 50% against the driver and instruct the claimant to sue the owner for the remainder. Thus it is simpler if the owner is named as second defendant straight up.

I think its against the company - it's a company vehicle, driven (presumably) in company time, on (presumably) company duty, by a company employee, on (presumably) company deligated authority.

How did the company cause the crash?

The company will (presumably) be in a better position to pay...

Exactly how is 'ability to pay' relevant?

It would come under the companies insurance if they had any, but assuming they don't, then the responsibility is solely that of the driver at the time.

[Jantar]

Using the arguement that "The driver caused the crash and therefore the company has no liability at all" is a good enough reason for every company in the country to unensure their vehicles. Any damage will always be someone else's fault, so why should the company carry insurance?

Bloody good idea. But if you wish to sue just the driver and not the company, then I wish you well.

[2 wheel madness]

If you are insured not a problem, you insurance co will deal with it!

Were the cops involved? If not then anyone could have been driving....

If you not insured then your claim as i understand it should be against the owner of the vehicle, it is then his/her responsibilty if he/she is not insured to pursue the driver for costs. After all it is their van that has been damaged too. Got to be some back yard company to have vans on the road that arent insured!

Put your foot down with the owner and im sure you will get some co-operation