# Defendent had several previous accidents



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

I am due in the High Court in connection with an RTA which was caused by the defendents car pulling out in front of mine. I have no previous convictions, claims or crashes. However the Defendant has had a history of accident in cars due to his reckless driving, these accidents were all untraced by guards as they happened on country road and he managed to get the cars towed out before any guards came along. How do I proved to the judge in the High court that this man is a reckless driver and is the cause of my serious injuries.?


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> I am due in the High Court in connection with an RTA which was caused by the defendents car pulling out in front of mine. I have no previous convictions, claims or crashes. However the Defendant has had a history of accident in cars due to his reckless driving, these accidents were all untraced by guards as they happened on country road and he managed to get the cars towed out before any guards came along. How do I proved to the judge in the High court that this man is a reckless driver and is the cause of my serious injuries.?



Surely you have discussed this with your solicitor?


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> I am due in the High Court in connection with an RTA which was caused by the defendents car pulling out in front of mine. I have no previous convictions, claims or crashes. However the Defendant has had a history of accident in cars due to his reckless driving, these accidents were all untraced by guards as they happened on country road and he managed to get the cars towed out before any guards came along. How do I proved to the judge in the High court that this man is a reckless driver and is the cause of my serious injuries.?



I would imagine that if his accidents were not on record there is nothing you can do - on paper he probably has no convictions, claims or crashes either and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.

Did any of his previous accidents involve other drivers?


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Surely you have discussed this with your solicitor?


 
please!.  I am representing myself. No solicitor involved due to corruption!


----------



## ubiquitous (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> please!.  I am representing myself. No solicitor involved due to corruption!



How was I to know that based on what you posted above


----------



## MOB (16 Sep 2008)

The standard way of proving these things is to give evidence as follows:

"Everbody knows..............."

"I talked to a lad who heard it from another lad....."  or , my personal favourite

"ask anyone in (killybuckscuttle, or wherever) and they'll tell ya.."

Seriously, the rules of evidence are mostly founded in common sense.  You need to have people with first hand knowledge (i.e. actual witnesses) to prove that this guy has had a load of previous accidents.  So they need to have seen the crash, or towed the wreck or (best of all) have been paid off by the guy.  Good luck with that.

Of course, it is possible that this might entitle his insurer to say 'we are voiding this insurance policy on grounds of non-disclosure'.  Dear oh dear, this law business seems complicated.  Who'da thunk it.  

And what with almost every solicitor being corrupt, and most of the judges being in on it. you are right up against it.  But good luck anyway.  Seriously.  Going to the High Court without legal representation and a semi-dodgy case, you will need lots of luck.


----------



## Sunny (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> please!. I am representing myself. No solicitor involved due to corruption!


 
Are you seriously going to the High Court and representing yourself?


----------



## Dachshund (16 Sep 2008)

Sunny, if you read this thread from the OP it might explain a few things.


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

Having read through previous posts regarding this I would say that you are wasting your time trying to prove that this guy is a dangerous driver - courts don't listen to local gossip.  As a matter of interest did the other driver have insurance?


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

Sunny said:


> Are you seriously going to the High Court and representing yourself?


 

YES! And you might also want to read this thread to understand why I will represent myself! http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=86417


----------



## MOB (16 Sep 2008)

Is this related to the previous thread where OP wanted to make a claim to MIBI because OP was uninsured??   Is it the same incident?

If so, it seems we would have a situation where OP was uninsured on the day but wants to base his case in part on the fact that he has "no previous convictions, claims or crashes" and should therefore be believed by the court, while a third party has several (unproven) crashes, and is therefore lacking in credibility.   Am I reading this correctly?.    

John Joe, if I am understanding your situation correctly, would you please please please do yourself a favour and get proper legal advice and representation.   You cannot reasonably expect to bring such a half-assed case to the High Court and get a good result.   You are going to end up in a situation, like many lay litigants, where you think you have been unjustly treated by 'the system' and if you obsess about it, there is the possibility that it may well ruin your life.  The system has rules. Lawyers are necessary.  A necessary evil in some eyes, but nevertheless necessary.  Do yourself a favour.


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> YES! And you might also want to read this thread to understand why I will represent myself! http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=86417



Seems as though you got your money back - go and put it on a different solicitor (perhaps one recommended by a friend).  I'm sorry but from reading all of the posts about your accident it seems as though you need somebody to blame for the accident.  Your initial post about the MIBI made no mention of the fact that the other driver caused the accident - are you sure he caused the accident?, were you perhaps driving too fast to stop etc.  I really think that [1] you need a solicitor [2] you have to accept responsibility for being uninsured.  I don't wish to be cruel but from the details supplied you are the one at fault despite your previous good record of driving.  Your injuries seem severe don't take a chance and represent yourself, you had one bad experience with a solicitor - these things happen!.  If nothing else maybe you could talk to a legalaid solicitor - you may qualify for this given your inability to work etc.


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

MOB said:


> You are going to end up in a situation, like many lay litigants, where you think you have been unjustly treated by 'the system' and if you obsess about it, there is the possibility that it may well ruin your life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMan (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> MOB said:
> 
> 
> > You are going to end up in a situation, like many lay litigants, where you think you have been unjustly treated by 'the system' and if you obsess about it, there is the possibility that it may well ruin your life.
> ...


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

MrMan said:


> Its better to have some faith in the system than to be guided by paranoia. A bad experience shouldn't colour your view entirely.


 
There was a local case here not so long ago. The client was due a payment from an insurance company for €9000. Guess what happened? Yea the client ended up with €3,000 and the solicitor got €6,000. The list is endedless, I could go on and on when it comes to solictors administering the Money

And for MOB post. Yes I was insured in my own car. Therefore paying my contributation towards the MIBI. The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.


----------



## rmelly (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> And for MOB post. Yes I was insured in my own car. Therefore paying my contributation towards the MIBI. The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.


 
Sorry, I'm a bit confused here - were you insured on the car you were driving?


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

rmelly said:


> Sorry, I'm a bit confused here - were you insured on the car you were driving?


 
The car I was driving didn't belong to me therefore I couldn't and was not insured on it. The owner of the car failed to insure it. Hope you helps and you can come up with a resonable answer


----------



## rmelly (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> The car I was driving didn't belong to me therefore I couldn't and was not insured on it. The owner of the car failed to insure it. Hope you helps and you can come up with a resonable answer


 
Sorry, but I'm still not getting this. Good luck anyway...


----------



## DavyJones (16 Sep 2008)

So you were driving unisured and crashed into somebody? Surely that is illegal and you shoudn't have been on the road.


----------



## peteb (16 Sep 2008)

You keep stating that you paid the levy for the MIBI but like everybody here has pointed out, the MIBI deals with claims from parties involved in an accident with uninsured vehicles.  Was the Third Party unsinsured? Was he the cause of the accident? Who knows!! Because you have never provided any of this information in either thread on this matter!!
If you were the cause, forget about it and move on!


----------



## MrMan (16 Sep 2008)

> And for MOB post. Yes I was insured in my own car. Therefore paying my contributation towards the MIBI. The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.



Surely it is your responsibility to ensure that the car in which you are driving is covered by insurance. Ignorance is not a defence.


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

MrMan said:


> Surely it is your responsibility to ensure that the car in which you are driving is covered by insurance. Ignorance is not a defence.


 
Surely a person would assume a car was insured by the owner as I owner has just step out of the the said car 2 minutes previous to me getting into it!


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

My reading of this is:

OP was driving his mates car and was uninsured.
The defendant was driving his own car and was insured.
OP claims that defendant pulled out in front of him and caused OP to hit him.
OP is claiming from MIBI despite the fact that the other driver was insured -op believes that the MIBI will cover him as he was the uninsured driver who was caused to collide with another driver.  What I don't understand is if the other driver is at fault (by the findings of the gardai) why is OP suing the MIBI when he should be suing the defendants insurance company (that is if the defendant is indeed liable).


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

DavyJones said:


> So you were driving unisured and crashed into somebody? Surely that is illegal and you shoudn't have been on the road.


 
It was illegal for the person who owned the car not to have it insured. He was the legal owner of the car in the accident


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> Surely a person would assume a car was insured by the owner as I owner has just step out of the the said car 2 minutes previous to me getting into it!



You shouldn't assume anything in relation to insurance - if you were as experienced and safe a driver as you believe yourself to be you would know this!.  If as you allege the other driver is so unsafe can you confirm whether or not HE had insurance??


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

ney001 said:


> My reading of this is:
> 
> OP was driving his mates car and was uninsured.
> The defendant was driving his own car and was insured.
> ...


 
The defendant didn't have any insurance that why I'm sueing the MIBI as they are the insurance for people that don't insure their car.


----------



## MrMan (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> Surely a person would assume a car was insured by the owner as I owner has just step out of the the said car 2 minutes previous to me getting into it!



I don't think assumptions stand up in court, they tend to deal in fact in which case you were driving uninsured and were breaking the law.


----------



## DavyJones (16 Sep 2008)

I think I see where you are coming from. I am far from a legal expert but I usually know when I'm beat. and if I were in your shoes I'd feel pretty beaten. I for one don't think you have much of a case.

Have you looked up similar cases? has anyone been successfull in this type of action?


----------



## Card (16 Sep 2008)

also we don't operate under a system whereby cars are insured as is the case in certain countries, here it is the driver rather than the car which is to be insured, it is up to each driver to ensure that they themselves are property insured. Insurance attaches to the driver rather than the car


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> The defendant didn't have any insurance that why I'm sueing the MIBI as they are the insurance for people that don't insure their car.



okay that wasn't clear from previous posts - so you are suing the MIBI because the guy that caused your accident didn't have insurance - so basically two uninsured drivers collided with each other is that correct??


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I think I see where you are coming from. I am far from a legal expert but I usually know when I'm beat. and if I were in your shoes I'd feel pretty beaten. I for one don't think you have much of a case.
> 
> Have you looked up similar cases? has anyone been successfull in this type of action?


 
Yes there was a simular case handed down in 2007 where the plaintiff was cover for their serious injuries through the MIBI.


----------



## susie1 (16 Sep 2008)

did your own insurance not cover you to drive the car you had the accident in 3rd party?


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

ney001 said:


> okay that wasn't clear from previous posts - so you are suing the MIBI because the guy that caused your accident didn't have insurance - so basically two uninsured drivers collided with each other is that correct??


 
Correct!


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

susie1 said:


> did your own insurance not cover you to drive the car you had the accident in 3rd party?


 
My own insurance was only third party. Would this cover me to drive his car?


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> Correct!



okay so why do you need to prove that the guy is an unsafe driver and caused your accident - surely by virtue of the fact that he is uninsured you won't need to prove anything about him?.  Did the guards reckon that he was the cause of the accident?


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> My own insurance was only third party. Would this cover me to drive his car?



As far as I know it would - as previously stated you insure the driver not the car so you would be covered 3rd party.


----------



## DavyJones (16 Sep 2008)

ney001 said:


> As far as I know it would - as previously stated you insure the driver not the car so you would be covered 3rd party.



Are you sure? I am insured to drive my cars because my name is linked to the regs. That doesn't mean I can drive anybody elses car, surely?. What is stopping me from sticking a top end BMW in my grannies name and insuring me in a  1.0L micra, for example and then just driving the BMW around cos I'm insured.


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Are you sure? I am insured to drive my cars because my name is linked to the regs. That doesn't mean I can drive anybody elses car, surely?. What is stopping me from sticking a top end BMW in my grannies name and insuring me in a  1.0L micra, for example and then just driving the BMW around cos I'm insured.



Don't know about different cars etc but I know that I am insured 3rd party on my partner's vehicle.  However, I do know of somebody who assumed he was insured 3rd party and took his friends jeep, small crash happened and it transpired that insurance wouldn't cover him in a jeep (i.e he was covered 3rd party if he had been driving a car)


----------



## DavyJones (16 Sep 2008)

ney001 said:


> Don't know about different cars etc but I know that I am insured 3rd party on my partner's vehicle.  However, I do know of somebody who assumed he was insured 3rd party and took his friends jeep, small crash happened and it transpired that insurance wouldn't cover him in a jeep (i.e he was covered 3rd party if he had been driving a car)




I would also guess that the car in question might have to have an insurance policy already on it. For example My granny would have to be insured on the BMW before my insurance was valid, possibly?


----------



## Dachshund (16 Sep 2008)

Third Party only covers injury or loss suffered by others as a result of your driving.

Comprehensive Insurance may cover you to drive other cars but only as much as third party insurance, always check the details of your policy.

Further information about car insurance can be found on the Motor Insurance page of the www.itsyourmoney.ie site.

In the case of the OP it does not appear that he has a valid claim against the MIBI. It would also seem that he made no effort to check with his insurance company that he was covered to drive his friend's car or to transfer his insurance temporarily to allow him to drive the car.


----------



## Card (16 Sep 2008)

An individual is insured to drive a particular car (which should the car which they use primarily) as per the terms of your policy, perhaps there is an extra provision allowing you to drive other cars but that would be unique to each policy. 

JohnJoe the type of insurance you have be it TFT or comprehensive does not determine whether or not you can drive other car, you have to look at the exact policy terms


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I would also guess that the car in question might have to have an insurance policy already on it. For example My granny would have to be insured on the BMW before my insurance was valid, possibly?



Sounds about right


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

Card said:


> An individual is insured to drive a particular car (which should the car which they use primarily) as per the terms of your policy, perhaps there is an extra provision allowing you to drive other cars but that would be unique to each policy.
> 
> JohnJoe the type of insurance you have be it TFT or comprehensive does not determine whether or not you can drive other car, you have to look at the exact policy terms


 
yes I have read my policy and it says that I am insured to drive another car as long as i'm not the owner of it.


----------



## ney001 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> yes I have read my policy and it says that I am insured to drive another car as long as i'm not the owner of it.



But in turn as DaveyJones says that car probably has to be insured.  

Again, can you confirm who the gardai found to be at fault?


----------



## John joe (16 Sep 2008)

ney001 said:


> But in turn as DaveyJones says that car probably has to be insured.
> 
> Again, can you confirm who the gardai found to be at fault?


 
No one was charged. How would I find out it the other car needs to be insured?


----------



## Card (16 Sep 2008)

read your policy


----------



## peteb (16 Sep 2008)

I think until the OP tell us the facts involved here we are all wasting our time, having to guess the details from the bits supplied.  Its like pulling teeth!


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> ....The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.


 
Is it?

Not illegal to own a car and not insure it. (On private land etc)

Only illegal to drive uninsured in a public place.


----------



## nuac (16 Sep 2008)

re this post to the effect that the defendant has had previous crashes on country roads but that the car was towed away before Gardai came.

I have some experience of RTA matters on country roads. If a car is damaged anywhere in the country side badly enough to immobilise it, the local sergeant will know about it within hours if not minutes- believe me on this.

Regarding your High Court action, Judges will listen to a lay litigant, but you need to set out the facts in writing clearly, in chronological order, stating why you consider the defendant to be negligent or in breach of a duty to you. You need to list your expenses and financial loss.

Such documents are called pleadings, and are usually prepared for their clients by their lawyers.

Judging from your posts, you need to work on the presentation of your case..


----------



## csirl (17 Sep 2008)

> re this post to the effect that the defendant has had previous crashes on country roads but that the car was towed away before Gardai came.


 
Whether or not the other driver was negligent in the OPs particular accident is the big issue, not whether or not they are bad drivers with previous history. Even the worst driver in the world can be in an accident which is someone elses fault.

I would assume the fault attributed by the Gardai would carry most weight in a case.


----------



## TreeTiger (17 Sep 2008)

If I'm correct in my understanding of the OP's posts on this matter in various threads, then neither driver was insured.  
(Thinking you're insured does not mean you are actually insured!)

I imagine then that this paragraph from the MIBI website would be relevant:
"Where a vehicle, the use of which is not covered by an approved policy of insurance, 
collides with another vehicle and the use of that other vehicle is also not covered by an approved policy of insurance, 
the liability of MIBI shall not extend to any judgement or claim in respect of injury, death or damage 
to the property of the user of either vehicle."

As far as I am aware, MIBI normally pay out to an insured driver who has been in a collision with an UNinsured driver.  
Then they pursue the uninsured driver to recover the compensation that they have paid out.  
In the OP's case it wouldn't make sense to pay compensation to the OP that they would then insist on having back!


----------



## John joe (18 Sep 2008)

TreeTiger said:


> If I'm correct in my understanding of the OP's posts on this matter in various threads, then neither driver was insured.
> (Thinking you're insured does not mean you are actually insured!)


 
It turns out now I was insured in the other car as my insurance policy states "Any Motor car (or Cycle) being driven, with the consent of the owner, by the Insured, provided such vehicle does not belong to him/her and is not hired to him/her under hire purchase agreement"



TreeTiger said:


> I imagine then that this paragraph from the MIBI website would be relevant:
> "Where a vehicle, the use of which is not covered by an approved policy of insurance,
> collides with another vehicle and the use of that other vehicle is also not covered by an approved policy of insurance,
> the liability of MIBI shall not extend to any judgement or claim in respect of injury, death or damage
> to the property of the user of either vehicle."


 
The above would not apply in my case




TreeTiger said:


> As far as I am aware, MIBI normally pay out to an insured driver who has been in a collision with an UNinsured driver.
> Then they pursue the uninsured driver to recover the compensation that they have paid out.
> In the OP's case it wouldn't make sense to pay compensation to the OP that they would then insist on having back!


 
Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.

Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.


----------



## ney001 (18 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.
> 
> Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.



Did you give your solicitor your insurance cover document and let him examine it?  -  in all fairness it's your business to know whether you are insured to drive or not!  If this is the case then it would seem that you do have a claim against the other driver via the MIBI, however you will have to have a strong case to prove that he was at fault - local gossip won't do it!


----------



## Card (18 Sep 2008)

my insurance has a similar provision allowing me to drive other cars with the owners permission, however even though I'm driving under my own insurance I'm pretty sure my policy insists that the other car be insured also, doesn't make sense unless it in someway ties in with the roadworthiness of something of the other vehicle


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> It turns out now I was insured in the other car as my insurance policy states "Any Motor car (or Cycle) being driven, with the consent of the owner, by the Insured, provided such vehicle does not belong to him/her and is not hired to him/her under hire purchase agreement"


 
That would be third party I assume, so AFAIK you couldn't claim on your own policy for your own injuries. But it would mean you were insured which is the important point. 



John joe said:


> Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.
> 
> Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.


 
Can't understand how this was overlooked by either of you???


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Sep 2008)

Card said:


> ...I'm pretty sure my policy insists that the other car be insured also, doesn't make sense unless it in someway ties in with the roadworthiness of something of the other vehicle


 
Insurance and roadworthiness? Is there some relationship there that policies detail in anyway? If you have your own insurance, why would the car need to be covered by another policy?


----------



## bacchus (18 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> . How would I find out it the other car needs to be insured?


 
By checking the insurance disk on the windscreen or lack of..


----------



## John joe (18 Sep 2008)

bacchus said:


> By checking the insurance disk on the windscreen or lack of..


 
your not understanding the question. please read again!


----------



## John joe (18 Sep 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Can't understand how this was overlooked by either of you???


 
I dont understand why the solicitor over looked it. This only became apparent to me after talking control of my own file and my solicitor coming off record.


----------



## ney001 (18 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> your not understanding the question. please read again!




Ring your own insurance company surely?


----------



## ney001 (18 Sep 2008)

John joe said:


> I dont understand why the solicitor over looked it. This only became apparent to me after talking control of my own file and my solicitor coming off record.



Again, did you give your solicitor your policy?

Why did you not read your policy?


----------



## Bronte (18 Sep 2008)

John joe have you thought about what will happen if you lose your case in the High Court, the costs will be horrendous, can you afford that?  I think it would be more helpful if you said what exactly happened as I (and others) cannot really understand it - for example -  my friend came  to my house, I drove his car on my property/ the road because I needed to go buy some milk, I thought I was insured because.... I crashed into x because... the other person was not insured, I do not know this other person.... etc...


----------



## TreeTiger (18 Sep 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> Can't understand how this was overlooked by either of you???


I can't either, especially as according to this post, the accident happened well over 4 years ago.

I have read the OP's threads relating to this matter and admit that I'm thoroughly confused - and Bronte's post suggests there are a few of us in that position - which means it's hard to give useful advice.

OP, the normal thing to do in the event of a collision, especially where there are injuries, is to inform one's insurance company.  Did you do that at the time? And if so what did they say?

As regards MIBI, a claim has to be submitted with a year.  Did you do that, and did they say your claim was admissible?

If you left everything in the hands of your ex-solicitor and nothing was done in a timely fashion then I could see you having to sue the ex-solicitor, and for that you would definitely need properly qualified legal representation.

You may not realise it, but some of your posts come off a bit snippy - like telling people they haven't understood the question and to go back and read it again.  You'll get plenty of help if you make your posts nice and clear, but if people aren't getting your meaning then you will continue to receive replies that are not telling you what you wish to know.


----------



## csirl (18 Sep 2008)

Was fault in the accident determined at the time? I dont think this has been answered.


----------



## MOB (18 Sep 2008)

I was about to sit down and do a detailed summary of the whole situation, in the hope that it might be of assistance to the OP and guide his further actions;

On reflection I just can't be bothered.  It is this simple: OP should get a solicitor.


----------



## nesbitt (18 Sep 2008)

I just read this thread, I'm now quite tired..... Basically, did JohnJoe only 'discover' he was in fact insured after proceedings had taken place, on the premise that he assumed he was not insured?! If you know what I mean!!! Closing the gate after the horse had bolted??? Or is it flying by the seat of yer pants...


----------



## DavyJones (18 Sep 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> That would be third party I assume, so AFAIK you couldn't claim on your own policy for your own injuries.




I always belived even if you had fully comp you can't claim for injuries of your own insurance, only damage done to  your car. I think you would need other personal insurance to cover for injuries.


----------



## ajapale (19 Sep 2008)

Moved from Askaboutlaw to  Car & motoring.

Please post in the correct location.


----------



## Allen (21 Sep 2008)

Hi John joe.  From the title of the post I assume that you are the plaintiff.  Has the defendant made a counter claim against you?


----------

