So you can drink and drive and cause an accident and you don't have to pay as the vehicle/business you hit didn't have insurance. I seem to be missing something here, but I think the Magistrate is missing a lot more
I was just going to post this. Bloody outrageous. The drunk caused the damage, and the poor b'stard car owner gets screwed over because HE doesn't have insurance. Where is the responsibility of the driver?
bwg11,
Jul 25, 5:05pm
Topic, "Dose this sound right to you" discusses the same case.
8anna8,
Jul 25, 5:11pm
I wonder if this may set a precedent for future accidents where one is uninsured?
kevymtnz,
Jul 25, 5:28pm
concrete blocks
mimik3,
Jul 25, 5:31pm
For the dealer or the driver of the vehicle?
s_nz,
Jul 25, 8:01pm
Nah, this ruling was by a community magistrate (who is not even a lawyer), not a judge. I don't think they have the power to set precedent.
rim12,
Jul 26, 11:29am
U do the crime u pay the damage,never read so much rubbish in my life.
bashfulbro,
Jul 26, 11:32am
Just how stupid can a magistrate be ? this one is obviously as TAPS, it`s hard to believe . i would love to see this fool, or her family on the wrong side of some criminal offending, she doesn`t give a rat`s arse about the victim in this case.
kazbanz,
Jul 26, 11:52am
Hang on a minute guys--I think you all misunderstand. First of all even if the kid was driving his own car and did have insurance -that insurance would be void due to it being a DIC case. Second The "judge" was only giving damages related to the criminal conviction Not the civil matter regarding the cars damaged. The dealer can legitimately pursue the kid through normal means for the cost of repairs.
vtecintegra,
Jul 26, 11:56am
The last part is key and what the insurance company would have done anyway.
socram,
Jul 26, 1:28pm
And the chances of actually getting paid would be?
Many are against compulsory insurance, but it sure as heck kept me off four wheels until I could afford it. I was 21 and had been on a youth wage, or a low wage until then.
I could have bought a decent old car back when I was 17, for about $40, but was restricted to a slow $20 motorbike. Compulsory insurance and rego was just too expensive for youngsters.
Back then, even at 24, they classed a 998cc Mini Cooper as a sports car (laughable, I know) and even with a clean, claim free record, the Civil Service approved insurer refused to insure it!
Probably shaped my determination to be a safe driver.
bill1451,
Jul 26, 1:33pm
the driver is prob unemployed and will be so for a long time, cant pay wont pay and if he could pay, it would be at the rate of $2.50 a week, and then skip to Aus.
tamarillo,
Jul 26, 1:41pm
Kaz has it, as usual. Community Magistrate In not a judge so no precedent set. She has asked for details of what the offender can pay which is normal. No point in awarding money that is impossible to get. That usual in all courts. And she is looking only at the driving offence. And the dealer can explore other avenue and ask for it to be heard at district court judge level. And, frankly, dealer should have insurance and is a wally if he doesn't. He owns stock and a business has to insure its stock. That's normal business practice people. I would agree that car owners should have compulsory third party which would clean this situation up as dealer can claim on that.
IMO this is a media wind up to get a story and reaction.
mimik3,
Jul 26, 1:50pm
I hear you, but the judge said that reparations are in order and that the offender should pay something, just not the $13,000 that has been requested. The magistrate makes the comment "I'm not prepared to be awarding a $13,000 reparation for someone who has chosen not to get their cars insured," The issue is that if the dealer had insurance, no doubt the insurance company would go after the offender for the full amount. But is is dangerous precedent when magistrates start determining that the innocent party is partially responsible because they didn't have insurance.
socram,
Jul 26, 3:16pm
Weird logic. On that basis, you get burgled but somehow it's your fault because you had jewellery or an expensive laptop in a locked house?
It's your fault because you were driving along a straight stretch of road and someone drives out of a side road and T-bones you?
elect70,
Jul 27, 9:49am
Seems the dispute is over reparations for the dealers loss . May have grossly inflated values of damage
loud_37,
Nov 11, 11:46am
If the dealer had insurance the insurance company would have to fight the decision and do all the crap work to get paid, and they would probably only get $5 per week. Its now on the dealer to do all this work to get paid.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.