Learner Driver and Supervisor Who Is Responsible for The Damages?

Llothus777 on 20/01/2019 - 18:25
Last edited 20/01/2019 - 18:45

So my friend is a learner driver that recently got in a accident few months ago. The person supervising had insurance but wasn't insured as they were over 25 where age excess does not apply. At that time of accident, the supervisor was on their phone not paying attention to the learner, their name was also on the VicRoads learner logbook. like in this scenario shouldn't the supervisor be responsible for the damages as they are responsible for the learner too?

edit: the learner is not worried about paying the fine, it just that who is right and wrong

Automotive

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 18:29
    +20

    had insurance but wasn't insured

    Wha…?

    supervisor be responsible for the damages as they are responsible for the learner too?

    No. The learner is an adult. The supervisor is responsible to teach and guide the learner, not clear the lands of any possible obstacle.

    • lothus777 on 20/01/2019 - 18:40
      -1

      http://www.gdlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/November1…
      page 6

      The supervisor claim was denied because she was over 25 accompanied by a learner, like in a moral conscience of right and wrong shouldn’t the supervisor pay as she should have known what her policy was.

      • Baysew on 20/01/2019 - 18:58
        +6

        That case was appealed Court relaxes the extent of a supervising driver’s duty of care to a learner driver – Thornton v Sweeney [2011] NSWCA 244

        Looks like it was a case to determine fault for medical expenses, not damage to a car. In Victoria these sort of cases are not necessary as TAC operates on a "No fault" basis.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 19:02
        +18

        Morality and legality are often two separate issues.

        Legalities aside, ie. Law, licensing, insurance… What is left is two people in a car. One person teaching (allegedly poorly) and the other person operating the car.

        Who should pay? The person who has volunteered their time, their vehicle and their safety, or the person who crashed the vehicle?

        • HeartFeltAxe on 22/01/2019 - 18:59

          The legal system is based on morality. Why would they be two separate issues? (Speaking from teenage ignorance)

          • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 20:21
            +1

            @HeartFeltAxe: Firstly, even though the two are separate it does not mean our legal system is broken.

            Morality is subjective. Philosophers debate morals and depending on their philosophy, the morality of any given situation may be different. A popular example would be the train and the diverging track - one would run over a few elderly people, and the other would go over a perfectly healthy teen. It is an ethical dilemma.

            The legal system's primary goal is to be uniformly applied, to be unambiguous it it's application, and absolute it's judgement. This means it cannot bend to the situation for if it does, it is no longer absolute. If the legal system is the train, it would not change course as it is not interested in who it hits, it is already looking for who to blame and what the plaintiff would be charged with.

            So, the legal system is based on morality but morality should never be based on legalities.

            • HeartFeltAxe on 23/01/2019 - 07:59
              -1

              @[Deactivated]:

              Morality is subjective. Philosophers debate morals

              I disagree. Just because philosophers debate morals, doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. Concerning the train and diverging track example: although we may not all agree on the answer, I still think there is a right answer to be found. The correct moral choice comes from reasoning the effects of a decision.

              The legal system's primary goal is to be uniformly applied, to be unambiguous it it's application, and absolute it's judgement.

              It seems to me that you are saying that the legal system is unbiased and 'black & white'. I think you are right, and this is a good thing. However, if morality is subjective, and the legal system is based on morality, then that means the legal system is (at least partly) subjective!

              This means the legal system is based on someone's moral preference which is no more valid than anybody else's preference. Therefore, our mostly good and righteous legal system in Australia is, in reality, no different to a legal system which is bent on benefiting the evil.

              If morality is subjective then the world turns upside down. Murder is (morally) no different as kindness, love indistinguishable from hate.

              What is, then, your objective foundation for morality?

              • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2019 - 09:07
                +1

                @HeartFeltAxe:

                The correct moral choice…

                I sincerely hope you read this one day and cringe. The worst kind of evil is the one that can continue it's horrors with a clear conscience.

                Murder is (morally) no different as kindness…

                Murder is an action, kindness is a sentiment. This is well into the territory of teenage poetry.

                What is, then, your objective foundation for morality?

                Principles. Not many people based their morals on it because they base their morals on emotions. Emotions change. Principles must not conflict and should never be pliable to the situation, no matter how inconvenient.

                (I cannot claim to live to that standard all the time. I'm not a monk).

                The track dilemma - my principles is I do not choose who gets to live or die. No exception. I'll pull the brakes but which track it goes over is no longer my concern. It is not the correct answer but it is one that fits my principles.

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:13
        +1

        The supervisor wasn't actually driving.

        • abb on 21/01/2019 - 14:58
          -1

          The supervisor wasn't actually supervising either.

          For all we know this was the learner's first time behind the wheel and they were taken into a complex busy inner-city environment, or a high-speed motorway, or the Simpson Desert!

          (or it could be an almost-graduated learner who bumped into a parked car, we just don't know)

          • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2019 - 16:27
            +2

            @abb: So the learner was driving unsupervised.

            Wouldn't they receive a fine for driving without a valid license then?

            Just a thought.

          • p1 ama on 21/01/2019 - 20:57
            +2

            @abb:

            For all we know this was the learner's first time behind the wheel and they were taken into a complex busy inner-city environment, or a high-speed motorway, or the Simpson Desert!

            Drivers (learner or otherwise) do not magically get taken to a complex inner-city environment. They themselves drive into those environments, or at the very least, agree to drive in those conditions. If they are uncomfortable driving in such conditions then they should pull over and stop driving.

            Someone has to take responsibility and the buck stops with the person behind the wheel.

            • abb on 22/01/2019 - 08:20
              +1

              @p1 ama:

              If they are uncomfortable driving in such conditions then they should pull over and stop driving.

              Yes, they should. But due to many psychological factors, people don't always do the optimal thing. Maybe they're being pressured into something they don't really feel comfortable with, maybe they don't know enough to understand the risks, maybe you're not allowed to pull over due to clearways, etc.

              • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:02
                +2

                @abb:

                But due to many psychological factors, people don't always do the optimal thing.

                Then you pay, that's the lesson lol

              • p1 ama on 22/01/2019 - 14:36
                +2

                @abb:

                But due to many psychological factors, people don't always do the optimal thing. Maybe they're being pressured into something they don't really feel comfortable with, maybe they don't know enough to understand the risks, maybe you're not allowed to pull over due to clearways, etc.

                This is going to sound harsh, but that means that you are not ready to drive. All drivers (including learners) need to understand that driving is by far the most dangerous activity most people engage in on a daily basis.

                You will encounter many situations on the road that will make you feel uncomfortable, it is up to YOU, the person behind the wheel, to make sure that you can continue to make optimal decisions even when under pressure. That means understanding where your limits currently are and pulling over.

                I've driven interstate many times and made the decision to pull over to have a nap because I understand if I keep going, I am a danger to myself and other drivers. This is at the insistence of other people in the car who urged me to keep going. Before you even think about driving, you should understand that if ANYTHING comes up where you feel even remotely uncomfortable to continue driving, you should pull over and remove yourself from harm's way.

              • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:52

                @abb: If I would not have driven the car, when I was uncomfortable, I never would have gotten the license.

    • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 18:42

      The learner is an adult.

      https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/your-ls/get-your-ls…

      If you’re 16 or older and live in Victoria, you can apply to get your car learner permit.

    • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 20/01/2019 - 21:22
      +2

      The phone is at fault. Sue the contraption for as much as possible.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 21:27
        +4

        Or the VicRoads because they are responsible for maintaining safe roads. Someone crashed, the roads must therefore be unsafe.

        • Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead on 20/01/2019 - 21:43
          +1

          Sue the roads, the road signs and the cement! Damn it I want action!

      • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:54

        Pretty sure, that if someone is a supervisor for a learner, and he is on the phone, then he is doing something illegal.

    • abb on 21/01/2019 - 14:58

      The supervisor is responsible to teach and guide the learner, not clear the lands of any possible obstacle.

      It's quite possible that if the supervisor was supervising the driving, rather than their instagram points, they would have been able to issue an instruction that would have avoided the crash.

      There's a reason L-platers are required to have a supervisor. Part of it is to "teach and guide", but mostly it's so they can use their experience to keep everyone safe - learner and public at large.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2019 - 15:34

        Everything you said is true and that will probably be how it is ruled in court.

        OP is talking about morals and blame between friends. It is very ingrained into us that road laws are above all considerations but people can drive in the absence of jurisdiction, ie private roads and paddocks, do so while stone cold drunk and without a license. Between friends, I would be arguing purely morality and absolutely in disregard of the law. Would you still find the supervisor to blame if the law didn't dictate that driving with a mobile phone is illegal?

        • abb on 22/01/2019 - 08:18

          I don't know enough to assign blame in this case - it (mainly) depends on how much experience the learner has, IMO.

          If I'm doing a risky activity with a friend, I expect them to explain the safety rules and observe me until I've demonstrated competence, I do that when I'm the teacher. Legalities are not my concern, it's just the right thing to do.

        • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:55

          but people can drive in the absence of jurisdiction, ie private roads and paddocks

          Because nobody cares what you are doing in private. And that's good so.

          • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 16:15

            @cameldownunder: It's just an example to ease people out of presumption legality is interchangeable to morality.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 18:37
    +27

    Supervisor on the phone is a big issue, IMHO.

    • orangetrain on 21/01/2019 - 08:40
      +14

      Your honours, a Xiaomi deal got posted. The defence rests.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 19:50

      plenty of parents supervise their kids whole over the limit, my mum did it all the time, dunno if it is illegal, but this was pre-rbt anyway

      • Entropy Sky on 23/01/2019 - 12:28
        +2

        Unsure about NSW, pretty sure its illegal in VIC.

  • Ughhh on 20/01/2019 - 18:37
    +14

    The person supervising had insurance but wasn't insured as they were over 25 where age excess does not apply.

    Doesnt make sense.

    Is the supervisor a hired driving instructor?

    • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:56

      Car insured for over 40 year old drivers only.

  • redforever on 20/01/2019 - 18:38
    +4

    i think the driver is ultimately responsible. is this a proper driving school? they should have insurance.

  • wizzy on 20/01/2019 - 18:39
    +4

    Do you mean that the supervising driver only had insurance to cover people over the age of 25? Thus the damage caused by the learner is not covered because the learner is under the age of 25?

    I would imagine that the supervising driver is legally responsible to pay for the damage and should not have been supervising if they did not have the appropriate insurance to cover the learner. Having said that, I would think that regardless of what the law says, the learner would want to contribute some money to pay for the damage too because they would feel bad about it.

    • lothus777 on 20/01/2019 - 18:42
      -7

      Yeah, like 50/50 split but the supervisor is being a bad friend and blaming everything the learner.

      • ozhunter on 20/01/2019 - 23:22
        +4

        So the "supervisor" is just a friend and not a driving instructor?

      • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:12
        +5

        Nope, the supervisor was 0% actually in control of the car - no feet on pedals, no hands on the wheel. The driver is still the only one driving.

        • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:57

          Handbrake ?

          • HighAndDry on 22/01/2019 - 15:58
            +1

            @cameldownunder: Someone else mentioned it too, but no - you do not want to be pulling on the handbrake for anything but an absolute emergency in situations where someone else (especially untrained) is driving. This seems like it was a minor accident, so best case you prevent this - at the risk of causing a much bigger accident because the car spins out or the driver panics.

      • callum9999 on 21/01/2019 - 14:40
        +16

        No YOU (I mean the learner driver….) are being an abysmal friend. You/the learner crashed the car therefore you are irrefutably liable for 100% of the damages (on a moral basis - I can't be bothered to think through the legal implications).

        In fact, the supervisor should also be making clear to as many people as possible that the learner driver is a cheating low-life who should under no circumstances be allowed anywhere near their car.

        (Sorry if it wasn't you - the way you're acting heavily implies it is)

      • highdealer on 22/01/2019 - 04:40
        +1

        supervisor is being a bad friend and blaming everything the learner.

        Is your friend paying the "Supervisor" for the lesson? If not, it's more like the learner is being a bad friend and can't accept her responsibility. If you can't drive, go learn from a professional instructor. They have break on their side and would 100% have full insurance for anyone driving their car.

  • Randxyz123 on 20/01/2019 - 18:44

    The person supervising had insurance but wasn't insured as they were over 25 where age excess does not apply.

    What?

    At that time of the accident, the supervisor was on their phone not paying attention to the learner, their name was also on the VicRoads learner logbook. like in this scenario shouldn't the supervisor be responsible for the damages as they are responsible for the learner too?

    Doesn't matter whose name is in the logbook. However

    1. Using your phone as a supervising driver is the same fine as while driving.

    2. You haven't said what happened. Did the learner rear end someone? Fail to give way? reverse into someone?

    Regardless the supervisor should not have been on their phone. Why were they on the phone? How experienced was the learner?

    The supervisor is considered to be at fault. They are the ones supervising the driving. Even if the learner was relatively experienced…

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:11

      The supervisor is considered to be at fault. They are the ones supervising the driving. Even if the learner was relatively experienced…

      But the driver is actually driving the car. Driver is at fault.

      • Bargain80 on 21/01/2019 - 14:34
        +6

        But is the accident preventable if the supervisor pay attention?

        • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 15:15
          +2

          Unless he had his feet on the pedals and hands on the wheel, unlikely.

          • Yummy on 21/01/2019 - 17:47
            -3

            @HighAndDry: What about handbrake?

            • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 17:50
              +6

              @Yummy: You want a passenger to pull the handbrake to a car driven by someone else? Yeah - THEN he'd definitely be liable for any crash that happens.

              • cameldownunder on 22/01/2019 - 15:59
                -3

                @HighAndDry: Nope: while learning driving, getting into a bend, my mother pulled the handbrake to slow down, and released it at the end of the turn.
                No accident happened.

                • HighAndDry on 22/01/2019 - 16:34

                  @cameldownunder: I'm not saying it'll cause an accident every. single. time. Just like drink driving or speeding doesn't either. But that's a hell of a dangerous thing to do.

                • unqualified89 on 22/01/2019 - 16:52

                  @cameldownunder: Bobby Boucher is that you? Your mumma is wrong!

                  That's just a terrible idea.

          • Sage on 22/01/2019 - 23:50

            @HighAndDry: the supervisor has their own set of pedals, and can grab the wheel easily.

    • Deridas on 21/01/2019 - 16:33
      +2

      "Using your phone as a supervising driver is the same fine as while driving."

      That is not true. Please provide evidence.

      The supervisor is a friend, presumably unpaid and willing to supervise by using their own car, their own time out of the good of their heart, free of charge.

      If the learner is someone so inexperienced that they need someone to hold their hand, they could've had the foresight and gotten a driving instructor, or go on roads that are adequate for their capability.

    • p1 ama on 21/01/2019 - 21:04
      +4

      Don't make things up.

      Using your phone as a supervising driver is the same fine as while driving.

      That is completely false. Read (12): https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/licence/driver/learner/supe…

      You are allowed to use a phone, it is not recommended, but you are not breaking any laws nonetheless.

      The supervisor is considered to be at fault. They are the ones supervising the driving. Even if the learner was relatively experienced…

      No, the person behind the wheel is the person responsible for where the car goes.

      Drivers need to take responsibility for their actions. Too many times I've seen "accidents" where drivers say things like "I just looked up and you were there, couldn't stop in time", even though it's more like "I'm a chump who wasn't paying attention and didn't leave enough room to safely stop". Taking responsibility for where your car goes is the most fundamental responsibility any driver has behind the wheel. If you cannot control where the car goes, go drive a simulator or practice in an empty parking lot in the middle of the night until you can control your car.

  • R-Man on 20/01/2019 - 18:50
    -6

    Supervisor is the at fault driver.

    This is the policy wordings on most of my past insurers:

    driving, using or in charge of your car at the time of the incident

    I also know a driving instructor in VIC whose Learner student got in an accident - the instructor is assigned at fault.

    • Euphemistic on 20/01/2019 - 22:34

      I also know a driving instructor in VIC whose Learner student got in an accident - the instructor is assigned at fault.

      You sure about that? It seems likely it would be the instructors insurance that would pay out, but the learner driver would likely be charged with any offence in the event of an incident.

      • R-Man on 20/01/2019 - 23:39

        hmm yeah I think Learners would be charged with an offence but i know from an insurance claim the Instructor was at fault.

        • Euphemistic on 21/01/2019 - 05:09

          Not the instructor, but the instructor’s insurance. Pretty much standard, the insurance is related to the vehicle’s owner/operator who may not be the driver. Eg my wife drives my car, if she crashes it she is at fault, but the insurance claim is against my insurance policy in my name. I’m not at fault but still responsible to rectify the damage.

          • whooah1979 on 21/01/2019 - 09:04
            +1

            @Euphemistic:

            but the insurance claim is against my insurance policy in my name. I’m not at fault but still responsible to rectify the damage.

            QLD
            https://www.smithslawyers.com.au/help/no-insurance-car-accid…

            No. Only the ‘at fault’ driver can claim on their own motor vehicle insurance policy. All you can do is claim against the ‘at fault’ driver themselves. If the ‘at fault’ driver is insured, they can choose to make a claim with their insurer to cover the costs of compensating you for your repairs. If this occurs, the insurer will stand in the ‘at fault’ driver’s shoes so you will essentially be claiming directly against the insurer.

            You cannot force the ‘at fault’ driver to make a claim with their insurer if they don’t want to, however they will have to pay you out of their pocket if you are successful.

            NSW
            https://www.shine.com.au/service/motor-vehicle-accidents/not…

            Can I claim on the at fault driver's insurance?

            Not possible. You can only claim against the driver themselves. If the driver is insured, they can choose to make a claim with their insurer to cover your compensation. You can’t force them to make a claim with their insurer. But if they refuse to, they may have to pay you with their own money if your claim is successful.

            • Euphemistic on 21/01/2019 - 10:39

              @whooah1979: Fair enough, splitting hairs. In the example I gave, as a couple we would want to use insurance. If however the driver had taken my vehicle without my authority I would be wanting that driver to pay and not use my insurance.

              ‘If the driver is insured’ might mean an insured driver under the vehicle owners policy because typically a driver doesn’t have ‘driving’ insurance, the owner will have ‘vehicle’ insurance.

              Technicalities, but the driver is at fault, who actually it’s will depend on the insurance coverin he vehicle’s driver.

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:10

      Supervisor is the at fault driver.

      That would be incredible since the supervisor isn't driving.

      driving, using or in charge of your car at the time of the incident

      Driver is still in charge of your car - supervisor is only supervising the learner driver, not the car itself.

      • picklewizard on 21/01/2019 - 14:56

        Then why is the supervising driver subject to the same BAC laws as if they were driving?

        • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 15:16
          -1

          Because they need to be sober to be supervising? As an example, the supervisor can completely be on their phone, whereas a driver can't.

        • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 13:10

          Then why is the supervising driver subject to the same BAC laws as if they were driving?

          Because the law specifically states that.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2019 - 20:07
    +5

    Drivers don't have insurance, cars do. The cars insurance would cover it unless it specifically excluded under 25's or learner drivers.

    If I borrow your car and have an accident your insurance covers it, my insurance is for my car and has nothing to do with it.

    • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 21:45

      The policy holder may choose to not make a claim. It would then be up to the driver to deal with the other party and their insurer.

      • Noblejoker on 21/01/2019 - 10:11
        -3

        Incorrect - it would then be up to the owner of the car to deal with the claim - which would be the policy holder

        • whooah1979 on 21/01/2019 - 10:32
          +3

          The owner of a vehicle doesn't have to be the registered operator of the vehicle. The owner is also not required to be policy holder.

          https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/get-nsw-regist…
          The registered operator is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle.

          • Noblejoker on 22/01/2019 - 10:19

            @whooah1979: Yes a person can register a vehicle and someone else can drive it
            No owner/driver has to have a policy except compulsory stuff like CTP
            This doesn't prove your point

        • whooah1979 on 21/01/2019 - 10:35
          +2

          https://www.shine.com.au/service/motor-vehicle-accidents/not…

          Can I claim on the at fault driver's insurance?

          Not possible. You can only claim against the driver themselves. If the driver is insured, they can choose to make a claim with their insurer to cover your compensation. You can’t force them to make a claim with their insurer. But if they refuse to, they may have to pay you with their own money if your claim is successful.

          • Noblejoker on 22/01/2019 - 10:18

            @whooah1979: The details you quote are from the perspective of the the third party - meaning the person/car that the learner drive hit. No that other person can't claim on the owner of the at fault car's insurance. Of course the owner of the car at fault can claim on the car insurance regardless of who was driving - unless the policy has restrictions (seems like it doesn't cover <25) or exclusions (e.g. drunk driving)

  • Fier2 on 20/01/2019 - 20:22
    -1

    A supervisor on the phone while on duty shouldn't be allowed to be on the road and should be fine. The supervisor eyes and ears should be always focus on the road as s/he is the driver . So, definetly the supervisor fault and s/he should pay for the damages. I would tell your friend to change the supervisor and go to another one learning school!

    • highdealer on 22/01/2019 - 04:44

      The supervisor is a friend and is supervising for free. The "friend" is mostly likely being a tightarse trying to skimp some money by not using a proper driving instructor. We don't even know the circumstance of the accident or what was the purpose of the driving lesson.

  • chumlee on 20/01/2019 - 20:54
    +1

    If it's a driving instructor business your friend engaged the services of, then the business will need to have insurance and be responsible for the damage

  • DarkOz on 20/01/2019 - 21:24

    I don't quite understand what is happening with the insurance. Can someone please explain it to me?

    If this is a professional driving school the car should be fully insured for ANY learner driver. So it doesn't really matter who is at fault.

    If I have to blame anyone for the accident I blame both. The supervisor should be paying attention to the road and the learner driver. The learner driver should have stopped the car if he/she found the supervisor's behaviour to be unacceptable.

    • Ughhh on 21/01/2019 - 00:15

      I don't quite understand what is happening with the insurance. Can someone please explain it to me?

      I dont think anyone does. Neither does the Op, or maybe OP is ESL hence not communicating clearly.

      Though sounds like a friend or family friend from here

      Regardless who's "at fault" or "wrong or right", everyone has the duty of care for themselves and people around them, that includes using common sense.

    • Lexan on 21/01/2019 - 19:11

      I'm very confused too. The driver seems to have VicRoads learner logbook for the lesson. Not sure if the driver registered with Vic roads to be part of professional teacher.

  • AdosHouse on 20/01/2019 - 22:00
    +3

    The driver is at all times responsible for the vehicle.

  • Unorthodox on 20/01/2019 - 22:04
    +3

    I feel like it's not super clear but I'm guessing the supervisor is not an instructor, but rather a friend/family member etc of the learner.

    Therefore, it was not a business/driving school so it would be the car's insurance and I'm guessing the owner's insurance does not allow for under 25s(?)

    If that's the case, if the policy requires an additional excess for under 25s as the norm, then the driver probably should pay that amount and the excess for the general claim too.

    The supervisor being on their phone is a concern but from the info given it sounds like it was just an "adult" there for the hours

    • redforever on 20/01/2019 - 22:30

      OP's friend should have checked to ensure she is insured before driving the car. She needs to assume the risk of driving uninsured.

      If I were in her shoes, I wouldn't expect my friend to cover the cost of my accident.

      But get another driving supervisor or attend a proper driving school.

      • whooah1979 on 20/01/2019 - 22:47

        Learners in VIC may be as young as 16 years. Who many 16 year olds thinks or ever knows about TPPI?

        • redforever on 20/01/2019 - 22:53

          I got my license overseas so I don't know the answer. Not sure if the learners guidelines cover car
          insurance?
          If not, I think they should. The last thing a learner wants is to hit an expensive car in an uninsured car.

          Edit:Apparently this is covered in the checklist in VicRoads guide for learners.

        • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:14

          Doesn't really matter - if you're driving, you should know these things. Even as a learner driver.

  • Euphemistic on 20/01/2019 - 22:39
    +3

    The person sitting in the drivers seat is at fault, they are in control of the vehicle. The supervisor may also be neglifetn in instructing the driver, but not at fault in the incident. The insurance that pays would likely be the car’s owner which might also be the supervisor, or someone else. Insurance is allocated to a vehicle, but may have restrictions on payout depending on who is driving. If no insurance, then the learner will inherit a large debt.

  • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:09

    like in this scenario shouldn't the supervisor be responsible for the damages as they are responsible for the learner too?

    No, the learner is responsible for driving the car. Unless you expect the supervisor to violently wrest control of the vehicle away (no, that would be ridiculously stupid).

  • Noblejoker on 21/01/2019 - 10:14
    +2

    As above Cars have insurance not drivers
    Claim on the car insurance
    Maybe for some reason they can't claim on the car insurance - maybe it excludes drivers under 25?
    If so - why take an <25 learner for a drive FFS!
    Anyway - if no insurance then I guess the costs of the othe person need to be paid
    I doubt legally the learner driver has much responsibility but morally the learner should pay most/all the cost IMO
    Negotiate with the other persons insurer if you can

    • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:15

      I doubt legally the learner driver has much responsibility

      The learner driver is the one who physically and literally crashed the vehicle. They have all the legal responsibility.

      • Noblejoker on 21/01/2019 - 10:18
        +1

        Morally I agree - legally I doubt it
        happy to be proved wrong by actual legal facts
        Don't forget cars have insurance not people
        Forget the Learner example - If you borrow my car and have an accident are you saying you should pay in full and my insurance doesn't cover it?
        Of course not - how would you get cover otherwise?

        • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:20

          Forget the Learner example - If you borrow my car and have an accident are you saying you should pay in full and my insurance doesn't cover it?

          Yeah. Your insurance means you decide whether you want to make a claim, or if you want to claim directly against me. In which case I'll go to my own insurance - which I should have if I'm driving a car, any car.

          This is like if you crash into someone else and they have insurance. They don't have to make a claim, just because they have insurance and can.

          Don't forget cars have insurance not people

          This isn't correct. Insurance is owned by the policy-holder, with the car what you are buying insurance to primarily cover. It's like property, you can have contents insurance that covers your TV, but if a friend breaks it, they're still liable.

          • Noblejoker on 21/01/2019 - 10:29
            +1

            @HighAndDry:

            Yeah. Your insurance means you decide whether you want to make a claim

            Agreed you can insure your car and not claim - but why would you unless the damage is minor.

            In which case I'll go to my own insurance - which I should have if I'm driving a car, any car.

            So you think your car insurance covers you for driving someone else's car?
            Sorry but that is incorrect

            Insurance attaches to the vehicle - your insurance covers your car, my insurance covers my car
            Background - I have worked in insurance industry for 30 years

            Needs clarification from OP but I believe the real problem here is that the vehicle owner doesn't have insurance that covers the learner driver who is under 25 - otherwise why wouldn't you claim on the policy rather than pay the full damages to the other party

            • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:33
              +1

              @Noblejoker:

              So you think your car insurance covers you for driving someone else's car?

              Depending on your insurance policy, but some do, yes.

              Insurance attaches to the vehicle - your insurance covers your car, my insurance covers my car

              Background - I have worked in insurance industry for 30 years

              Will people stop throwing around unprovable qualifications to support arguments?

              Your insurance covers you for your car. My insurance coves me for my car. Most insurance does provide coverage for other drivers, but that depends on the policy. As an example, in this case, apparently the Supervising driver's policy excludes under-25s.

              Needs clarification from OP but I believe the real problem here is that the vehicle owner doesn't have insurance that covers the learner driver who is under 25 - otherwise why wouldn't you claim on the policy rather than pay the full damages to the other party

              I agree on what the problem seems to be. But in that case, it'd also be the supervisor's car. And they might want the L driver to just pay them the damages (because the driver is liable for damage), instead of increasing their premiums with a claim.

              E.g.: If my friend borrows my car and crashes it, they'd be liable to compensate me for the damage. Otherwise anyone without comprehensive insurance would be SOL.

              • Noblejoker on 21/01/2019 - 10:38
                +1

                @HighAndDry: understand that some people claim to be experts - but that cuts 2 ways
                Not starting a fight but happy to PM you my Linkedin profile and quals/exp

                Depending on your insurance policy, but some do, yes.

                For your own benefit have a look at your cover
                I have seen some cover TPPD for a replacement/loan vehicle when yours is off the road, say at the repairers
                Other than that I have never seen a standard car policy cover another vehicle, particularly one not owned or registered in the Insured's name
                And nothing like the OP circumstances
                If you can show me a policy that does offer that cover I will buy you a lottery ticket :)

                • HighAndDry on 21/01/2019 - 10:59

                  @Noblejoker: Okay, that might be rare. But in any case, nothing forces the supervisor to make a claim with his own insurance if the L driver actually crashed the car - the supervisor can always claim directly against the driver, same as if someone else crashed into him.

                  Edit: Actually you can totally take out insurance for a car registered under someone else's name. I had a friend do that for a car under their parents name that they were driving. He had insurance under his name for the car.

                  • Noblejoker on 22/01/2019 - 10:27

                    @HighAndDry: A child insuring a car owned by parents is common but technically the policy would/should be in both names parent & child
                    Still we are insuring a single car and someone is paying for
                    This is not that circumstance at all
                    A friend has lent a friend a car short term - in this case accompanying them as an instructor
                    Tomorrow the learner drives a different car and the day after that a different one again
                    How do you imagine the Learner driver insures against that?
                    Simple - they can't
                    Insurance goes with THE CAR not the driver
                    When the Third party who was hit makes a claim - they make it against the owner of the vehicle
                    In my unofficial/not legal opinion The owner/instructor will have zero chance of recovering from the Learner driver legally
                    Especially as the owner is instructing the learner and shares some responsibility (more so given they were on the phone IMO)
                    A quick Google and I couldn't find any evidence of that scenario
                    Happy to be proven wrong if some has a legal precedence but in many ears of experience including many claims on learner drivers I have never seen this - the at fault CAR policy is claimed on
                    Again - I think the Learner has a moral obligation to reimburse the owner the excess for his claim etc. but that's not law

                    • p1 ama on 22/01/2019 - 14:45

                      @Noblejoker:

                      Again - I think the Learner has a moral obligation to reimburse the owner the excess for his claim etc. but that's not law

                      I don't know why you're making this point when other posters here have literally quoted court cases which ruled that the learner driver is responsible in this case.

                      You are correct in saying that the insurance goes with the car, but certain policies can exclude certain drivers from being covered. For example, there are certain insurance policies that will give discounts for a driver under 25 not being included.

                      In this case, it is the learner driver's responsibility to make sure that the car they are driving is insured when they are driving it. Otherwise, they will be responsible for any damage they cause.

                      In my unofficial/not legal opinion The owner/instructor will have zero chance of recovering from the Learner driver legally

                      There are two issues here. There is the issue of the damage to the other car and the damage to the instructor's car. The learner driver is responsible for both.

                      Obviously the learner driver is responsible for damage to the other car. Surely you agree with that. Whether insurance pays out or they pay from their own pocket is irrelevant from the point of view of the not-at-fault other driver.

                      So what you're saying now is based on whether the learner is also responsible for paying for the damage to the instructor's car. This question has already thoroughly been answered by posts below quoting the relevant case law.

  • Deridas on 21/01/2019 - 13:15
    +2

    The learner driver is completely in the wrong, and should be responsible for all damages.

    In NSW anyway, the supervisor is allowed to be on their phone (point 12 in https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/licence/driver/learner/supe… , it's recommended for the supervisor to be not on the phone, they are allowed to do so).

    The learner driver is a competent adult, who has a (learners) license, and was in complete control of the car at time of accident.

    If anything, the supervisor seem to be a family/friend who was volunteering their time and car to the learner. For the learner to even think of sharing the responsibility for damages rather than simply being grateful is utterly ridiculous.

  • HardlyCharly on 21/01/2019 - 13:26
    +7

    Are you thick? How on Earth do all these morons survive to adulthood who can't even figure out that the driver of a car which causes damage is at fault! What in the actual ****!?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join