DCC clamper fixed a puncture for my wife but damaged my car. Can I sue?

Introuble83 said:
I did not mention the level of cover I have. If I want to make an insurance claim on my own policy I am entitled to do so. I won’t be as it will obviously affect my no claims bonus and drive up my premiums going forward
Click to expand...
So what level of cover did you have on the day?
 
peemac said:
I'd always have a can of "instant repair" foam in the car and have two in the wife's car. Tyre places hate the stuff as it's messy and makes it difficult to find a small puncture, but they are a godsend for a standard puncture.
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic I know but ... If it's not damage to the tyre wall then those cheap plugging kits with tools (you'll also need a foot or cigarette socket powered pump) usually work well and are easier than a wheel change. Cue the experts saying that you shouldn't do this but I have, it worked fine and passed NCT several times.

Edit: this sort of thing...
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
Imagine suing a Good Samaritan for something as trivial as this.

Next time, treat yourself to no-claims-bonus protection and in the meantime thank your lucky stars that your wife wasn't left helpless and vulnerable on the side of the road.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a Good Samaritan law in the USA.
He should not of helped her too protect himself
 
A friend of mine who was an engineer with Dublin City Council was under strict instructions not to give any advice on anything while on duty.

Apparently, a woman had asked a building crew to look at her garden wall to see if it was safe. It was nothing to do with them or the work they were doing. But the engineer told her it was ok. It subsequently fell and injured someone and the Council had to pay out. I thought it was an apocryphal story, but this thread makes me wonder.



Brendan
 
Last edited:
elcato said:
Lads, a bit unfair - it's difficult to judge the tone of a question online. I'm not sure the OP was asking a 'who should I sue' question here. Purely seeing if there was any other option rather than lose his NCB from the insurance.
Click to expand...
Have another look at the title of the thread- "DCC clamper fixed a puncture for my wife but damaged my car. Can I sue?"
 
What a nice thing for that person to do _ he could have just ignored her as most would do! While it's a pity the car was damaged I'd suggest you pay yourself and forget about it.
 
Folks I was annoyed and venting . I am obviously not going to sue anyone . It’s my wife’s fault for not following the correct protocol. Nonetheless I still feel if your not 100% sure what your doing leave it alone . It is what it is . I’ll live with the dent and move on .
 
It's your own fault for not training your wife properly. This is exactly the sort of stuff that should be covered in pre-marital courses. It could be argued that it's actually her parents fault for not training her prior to offering her for marriage but caveat emptor and all that.
 
Last edited:

If I kept the receipt can I still return (her) if appears faulty? 10 year anniversary approaching so worried about statue of limitations
 
TRS30 said:
If I kept the receipt can I still return (her) if appears faulty? 10 year anniversary approaching so worried about statue of limitations
Click to expand...
I believe that if you were married in a Church you get a 10 year warranty. If it was a Godless marriage it's only 5 years as you are really living in sin anyway and deserve whatever you get.

It's in the small print on the back of the marriage licence you signed when you bought her.
 
A friend of mine got involved in an argument with his sister in law over a puncture. She got a puncture and pulled into a petrol station. Took ages for someone to offer to change it for him. My mate asked why she didn't just change it herself. That's when the argument started...
 
This question raises some very interesting legal issues.

One of the problems associated with the Good Samaritan scenario is that of the duty of care.
In the tort of negligence the plaintiff must first show that the defendant owes them a duty of care.
This is an issue of law based on the peculiar facts of an individual case.
Generally, if the defendant owes no duty of care to the defendant they cannot be held liable.

Problems start when a person owing no duty of care decides to act. Such a person could end up creating a duty of care and leaving themselves open to an action in negligence. Hence, the old American scenario of physicians not attending to people who suffer an emergency in the street.

Was the DCC fellow actually negligent ? That is debatable. Did he fail to act like a reasonable person or did he act like a reasonable person would not ?

Are his employers vicariously liable for his purported negligence ? Doubtful if it was not a function incidental to his employment.

A quick look at the 2011 act does not seem to cover instances of property damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register