I can’t find any official definition as I think it depends on each controlling entity, eg: bridge owner. However, it has been suggested elsewhere that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would be the likely legal decider if such a case was undecided in court by other means.
In otherwords, if the average person of average intellect & standing in society was to decide that the vehicle was indeed “too high” compared to the conditions under which it was blown over, then it could be defined by the law as being a high vehicle for the purposes of prosecution and punishment, although the person from Clapham doesn’t by themselves have any powers to administer sentence.
The white van on the other side was my mate. He ended up with glass from the lorry’s windscreen over his van. Said he was lucky he wasn’t a few seconds later or he’d have copped for the lamp post. He also said the driver was getting thrown all over the cab so I suspect no seatbelt was being worn.
yt03:
It was closed well before the incident,and he did not have his curtains back as I was on the A63 approaching the bridge… Couldn’t help but have a chuckle!! I’m sure it said Minster on the curtain which is a local firm, so he should of known better!
The wagons I saw behind was tippers I believe.
Sometimes the local ones are the worst as they will do it a few times, get away with it, and think they are invincible so carry on doing it regardless of the signs.
yt03:
It was closed well before the incident,and he did not have his curtains back as I was on the A63 approaching the bridge… Couldn’t help but have a chuckle!! I’m sure it said Minster on the curtain which is a local firm, so he should of known better!
The wagons I saw behind was tippers I believe.
Sometimes the local ones are the worst as they will do it a few times, get away with it, and think they are invincible so carry on doing it regardless of the signs.
Doubt he’ll being doing it again, for that firm anyway, as surely he’ll be sacked for that. Insurance won’t pay out either for the truck, or the bridge damage which will run into thousands.
“Your insurer expects you to take reasonable care of your vehicle — accidents do happen (that’s the point of insurance), but if you are reckless or negligent it’s unlikely the insurer will pay out on your claim. For example, you’re unlikely to be covered if you ignore warnings and drive through a flooded road.”
By that logic can’t see an insurer paying out for a driver who drove on a bridge ignoring sufficient warnings not to do so.
Tris:
“Your insurer expects you to take reasonable care of your vehicle — accidents do happen (that’s the point of insurance), but if you are reckless or negligent it’s unlikely the insurer will pay out on your claim. For example, you’re unlikely to be covered if you ignore warnings and drive through a flooded road.”
By that logic can’t see an insurer paying out for a driver who drove on a bridge ignoring sufficient warnings not to do so.
That sounds like a quote from the “own damage” part of a comprehensive policy (the clue is in the first 11 words)- They can’t refuse a 3rd party claim on such grounds.
Tris:
“Your insurer expects you to take reasonable care of your vehicle — accidents do happen (that’s the point of insurance), but if you are reckless or negligent it’s unlikely the insurer will pay out on your claim. For example, you’re unlikely to be covered if you ignore warnings and drive through a flooded road.”
By that logic can’t see an insurer paying out for a driver who drove on a bridge ignoring sufficient warnings not to do so.
That sounds like a quote from the “own damage” part of a comprehensive policy (the clue is in the first 11 words)- They can’t refuse a 3rd party claim on such grounds.
Tris:
“Your insurer expects you to take reasonable care of your vehicle — accidents do happen (that’s the point of insurance), but if you are reckless or negligent it’s unlikely the insurer will pay out on your claim. For example, you’re unlikely to be covered if you ignore warnings and drive through a flooded road.”
By that logic can’t see an insurer paying out for a driver who drove on a bridge ignoring sufficient warnings not to do so.
That sounds like a quote from the “own damage” part of a comprehensive policy (the clue is in the first 11 words)- They can’t refuse a 3rd party claim on such grounds.
Yes I understand they always have to pay out for third party, however things have been changing and I believe that in certain and extreme circumstances (and I doubt missing a bridge closed sign would remotely qualify) claim back from the insured whatever they have paid out in third-party damages. For instance “Drink Driving” if you done a million pounds worth of damage whilst over the limit (easily achieved if someone has life changing injuries) then the insurance company would pay up, then may say to the drink driver, we will need your house to help cover our losses!
My friend did £15000 pounds of damage to a shop window whilst drunk, his insurance paid out, then went to court to claim their £15000 from my friend. They won.
F-reds:
My friend did £15000 pounds of damage to a shop window whilst drunk, his insurance paid out, then went to court to claim their £15000 from my friend. They won.
Thats what I thought would happen. They would pay out then take your ■■■ to the cleaners to reclaim the costs.
F-reds:
My friend did £15000 pounds of damage to a shop window whilst drunk, his insurance paid out, then went to court to claim their £15000 from my friend. They won.
Thats what I thought would happen. They would pay out then take your ■■■ to the cleaners to reclaim the costs.
I wonder who they would pursue if the drink driver was in charge of someone else’s vehicle. Would the insurers go after the haulage company leaving the haulage company to in-turn claim from the driver. Driver may have little to loose but a large haulage firm could be wound up.
F-reds:
My friend did £15000 pounds of damage to a shop window whilst drunk, his insurance paid out, then went to court to claim their £15000 from my friend. They won.
Thats what I thought would happen. They would pay out then take your ■■■ to the cleaners to reclaim the costs.
I wonder who they would pursue if the drink drive was in charge of someone else’s vehicle. Would the insurers go after the haulage company leaving the haulage company to in-turn claim from the driver. Driver may have little to loose but a large haulage firm could be wound up.
I would imagine the insurers would demand the details of the person driving at the time. I’m not sure how driving a company vehicle for reward is dealt with in terms of insurance.
F-reds:
My friend did £15000 pounds of damage to a shop window whilst drunk, his insurance paid out, then went to court to claim their £15000 from my friend. They won.
Thats what I thought would happen. They would pay out then take your ■■■ to the cleaners to reclaim the costs.
I wonder who they would pursue if the drink driver was in charge of someone else’s vehicle. Would the insurers go after the haulage company leaving the haulage company to in-turn claim from the driver. Driver may have little to loose but a large haulage firm could be wound up.
i know that the driver of the tow car involved in the selby railcrash has been persued by his own insurance company to try and recover some of their costs .