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

    • imurgod on 21/01/2019 - 19:44

      This

    • downbythecreek on 22/01/2019 - 08:20

      The OP never asked about who was at fault though, they asked about who is responsibile for the damages. These aren't always the same thing, just ask rental car companies.

  • redslert on 21/01/2019 - 14:36

    Learner was in control of the car and caused the damage.
    If the learner was reliant on the supervisor who was not paying attention then the learner should have pulled over and stopped the car instead of continuing.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2019 - 15:39

      Learner knew how to keep the car going straight and at cruising speed. Learner took redslert's advice to pull over but ironically is his/her least practiced maneuver.

      Driver and supervisor has been acquitted and are now buddies again. They're now drinking in celebration of a new person to blame.

  • Baysew on 21/01/2019 - 14:53
    +18

    They weren't driving a white 2005/2006 Mitsubishi Triton Ute registration AL-00-WY? Asking for a friend.

  • whooah1979 on 21/01/2019 - 15:27
    +2

    Similar case.

    Imbree v McNeilly and Anor [2006] NSWSC 680 (5 July 2006)

    http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWS…

    McNEILLY v IMBREE [2007] NSWCA 156 (2 July 2007)

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWC…

    Imbree v McNeilly; McNeilly v Imbree [2008] HCA 40 (28 August 2008)

    http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/…

    • xuqi on 21/01/2019 - 18:04
      +2

      LOL, OP thanks all in this thread for their contributions in completing the assignment.

    • Noblejoker on 22/01/2019 - 10:30

      The case you reference is
      1. For physical injury to a passenger - not damage to a third party car
      2. the driver of said vehicle was not a Lerner being instructed but an unlicensed driver
      This case proves nothing in relation to OP question

      • whooah1979 on 22/01/2019 - 12:43

        not damage to a third party car

        Tort law cover both personal injuries and property damage. Someone that have worked in the insurance industry for 30 years should know this.

  • Daabido on 21/01/2019 - 18:16
    +6

    As someone who has been a driving instructor for many years, I can almost guarantee it wasn't a driving instructor as the supervisor. They would have full insurance for anyone of a legal driving age, plus hopefully have the ability to use their dual controls, instructions and if necessary, take control of the wheel to avoid an accident. That being said, I did have one client come to me because their licensed driving instructor fell asleep while they were driving. There are other stories too, like picking up dry-cleaning, taking calls from clients on the phone, yelling at the learners, taking them into heavy traffic in peak hour on their first lesson and asking them to do a hill start at a set of lights within the first five minutes. I've pretty much heard it all. Unfortunately the barrier to entry to the industry is very low. Find a good one, though, and you'll get your money's worth.

  • DiscoJango on 21/01/2019 - 18:28
    +1

    when i was being potty trained i took a shit on the floor instead. who is at fault. the baby or the parent.

    • Yummy on 21/01/2019 - 19:05
      +2

      $5 Chicken McFeast's fault.

  • bmerigan on 21/01/2019 - 19:21

    The car owner's insurance should cover it and the learner should pay the excess.

  • imurgod on 21/01/2019 - 19:43
    +1

    This is an easy one. The driver is in care custody and control of the vehicle.

    Next case…

  • field1985 on 21/01/2019 - 22:11
    +1

    You crashed the car didn't you? Stop looking for excuses and pay your friend for the damage you caused.

    Welcome to adulthood.

  • highdealer on 22/01/2019 - 05:05

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

    If "your friend" are not worried about paying the fees, the why does it matter who is right or wrong. Just pay the damn fee and move on.

    Are "your friend" paying her friend to supervise her or are they doing it for free?

    Who idea was it for them to teach "your friend" how to drive in the first place?

    "Your friend" is at fault, unless the supervisor was paid or was receiving other service/incentive to supervise "your friend" how to drive or they suggested to your friend that they should teach "your friend"
    It is up to the learning driver to get adequate instruction, if you still need people to instruct and take action to prevent an accident while you are driving then you need to be in a car of a professional instructor.

    When i was 17 and trying to learn how to drive, 2 minutes into driving with my mom and i told her to stop and that i should get lesson with a proper instructor. Skimping a few hundreds dollar on driving lessons is not worth the risk of my life and other people life on the road. I made sure to get one that had break on the passenger side as well. When you are getting into a motor vehicle, you have to assume that your life and other people life on the road are in your hand. If "your friend" is this bad at accepting responsibility then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.

  • trapper on 22/01/2019 - 12:57

    Wait was this 'supervisor' a professional driving instructor or not? If so then they should have the proper insurance for their business that covers their clients.

    If not then unfortunately it's 100% on the learner (or any other driver) to ensure any car they drive has insurance which covers them.

  • UFO on 22/01/2019 - 14:49

    Learner needs to go do their test again.

    As a driver of a motor vehicle, it is the DRIVERS RESPONSIBILITY to ensure the car is roadworthy and has the appropriate insurances in place.
    The fact they are learner means NOTHING. The full licence holder is there to instruct on driving, nothing more.

    Not to provide insurance.
    The driver (learner or otherwise), is to make relevant inquiries with the owner of the vehicle before using it.
    If the owner happens to be the instructor, so be it. But the DRIVER is the one ultimately responsible for the car, their actions while driving it, any penalties regarding infringements, and yes… any claims on insurance. If the owner of the car obtained insurance which limits cover to 25yo and over, the DRIVER should have confirmed that before sitting in the car. Morally the owner should have prevented the learner from driving their car, but legally its the driver who needs to confirm everything is ok.

    Driver 150% responsible. If the car owner has chosen insurance that excludes the learner driver because of age or experience, responsibility for damages to other parties goes to driver. Damages to the car the learner was driving is also drivers responsibility legally, but owner will more than likely have to suck that up for allowing them to drive uninsured in the first place.

    Driver of a car cannot assume correct or valid insurance coverage of a car owned by someone else. CHECK FIRST!

    • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 16:25

      Driver 150% responsible.

      So…. Does the learner have to check the insurance of another random person to make up that 50%?

      • UFO on 22/01/2019 - 20:30

        you get my point

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 20:40
          +1

          I do but I'm also fun. :)

    • whooah1979 on 22/01/2019 - 16:53

      How old is the learner driver?

      • UFO on 22/01/2019 - 20:42

        Who cares?

        Are you referring to criminal responsibility?
        Contract law?

        If you're old enough to obtain a driver license, you are old enough to understand your responsibilities as a road user.
        If you don't own the car, then the person who owns it should at minimum know what insurance the car has… and inform the intended driver of their coverage (or lack there of).

  • Seraphin7 on 22/01/2019 - 14:50
    +1

    So when this all boils down, we have yet another example of someone driving/allowing others to drive their vehicle while uninsured.

    I thought we'd finished with all of these posts.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2019 - 16:32

      Our work is never done.

      As long as there's a car uninsured we will wear the mantle of hindsight mentor. We will berate the uninsured, shower those without dashcam with facetious scorn and demand MS Paint of all those who seek our wisdom.

      We, the oracles of retrospect.

  • Yummy on 22/01/2019 - 14:50
    +3

    This is just like that story about a toddler (L) who broke (crashed) the TV (the other car) in a store and the father (supervisor) had to pay $1000 for the damages (insurance) coz he wasn't watching (mobile phone distraction) over his young padawan.

    I believe the TV is at fault.

    :p

    • tasty-falafel on 23/01/2019 - 08:12
      +1

      Turns out that guy is OP's brother

  • Omitsukasa on 23/01/2019 - 13:38

    If I crashed my fam/friend's car while I'm on my L's I'd expect to pay for it. But if I paid for a driving instructor, I would expect his insurance to pay for it, not me. That's why i was willing to pay so much for the lessons.

  • nobarginsarehere on 23/01/2019 - 17:33

    The driver is responsible for the crash, they are responsible to make things right.

  • Drow on 23/01/2019 - 17:43

    From reading through, here are my thoughts

    The learner driver is responsible for the damage to the car.
    The driver is always responsible, it's why insurance policies have clauses for specific groups such as learners.

    The supervisor shouldn't have been on the phone, ignoring the road conditions, but isn't responsible if a learner rear ends someone.

    If the supervisor advised the learner that the car was insured for the learner then found out it wasn't, then the supervisor should (morally) bear the costs of repair.

    If the supervisor advised the learner that the car wasn't insured then the learner should bear the costs of repair.

    If the matter of insurance was never discussed I would err on the side of the supervisor being responsible for the cost of repairs, after all it was their car and they should know better.

    Knowingly having a learner drive your car while uninsured (for them) sounds like a really stupid way to get your friend to buy you a new car :/

    • p1 ama on 23/01/2019 - 19:21

      If the matter of insurance was never discussed I would err on the side of the supervisor being responsible for the cost of repairs, after all it was their car and they should know better.

      Unfortunately that's not what the law says. Insurance is irrelevant, the driver is responsible for the cost of repairs. This is regardless of whether insurance pays out or not.

      • Drow on 24/01/2019 - 15:10

        Unfortunately that's not what the law says.

        Yep, I was thinking more in a moral sense

        • p1 ama on 24/01/2019 - 20:37

          Why wouldn't the person who crashed the car be morally responsible?

          • Drow on 25/01/2019 - 02:26

            @p1 ama:

            Why wouldn't the person who crashed the car be morally responsible?

            I would think someone learning to drive is less likely to know about the different insurance levels.
            They should but if very unfamiliar with that world might make assumptions.

            The person who owns the car should definitely know and if they chose to teach a learner in a car that isn't insured for them,
            it feels like at best they are not providing a good duty of care and at worst are putting the learner on the hook for any damages.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join