Uninsured Driver

[Olgaline]

Thats a shame, as the DK version is preferable imo, since it protects the victims.
and forces responcibility apon the owner of the car..I like the fact that in Dk you are
actually held accounteble for who you lend your car to.

The way it works here is that if the driver is insured then it's his Insurence thats covers the damage,
if he's not insured, it falls to the owner of the car.

The po-po only really get involved if there has been injuries to a person/persons
or if, the trafic is hindered as a result of a crash.

Twoc dosent ever play into it, since the responcibility of securing the car is left to the owner.
Theft is another thing all together though..I'm not sure how that works tbh.

 

[Gumbo]

Good job on the job Laddey. Keep investing what you can in getting your tickets, anything and everything. You'll go far with that attitude.

 

[Ch3tan]

I think it would be more complicated in this case Olga. The insurance company of the dad would try and claim it was not responsible since an uninsured driver was driving, the police would have to be involved as the boy was driving without permissions. If the dad claimed he gave permission then his insurance would be void.... Laddey's insurance would have to claim against the dad and his son via the courts (assuming he has legal cover as part of his policy).

 

[Olgaline]

Not the way it works here Ch3t, the dads insurence would not have a choice in the matter.
thats the beauty of it, the fact that the car was taken without consent and the fact that the driver was uninsured would never come into play.
The insurence would have to pay up! the dad's premium would go up as a result, and thats about it.

 

[Tom]

If the father allowed his son to drive his vehicle without insurance then he would also be guilty of an offence - allowing a vehicle to be driven without insurance.

That would be a very understanding father, to allow six or eight points on his licence.