Accident while driving a car as a favour?

[seadog83]

So recently a friend was overseas for work, staying with a casual acquaintance. He somehow got food poisoning or was otherwise ill to the point of not being able to drive. He asked the guy he was staying with to drive him around, and he hesitatingly agreed.

Now of course he gets in a small accident, and being a decent person offers to cover half the damages (he had no car, and thus no insurance of his own) and my friend essentially scoffed at that thinking for a second there's no reason he shouldn't be covering 100%.

My friend told me about that, and I actually sided against him, and told him that I'd probably offer half out of good spirit, then if he wasn't grateful for it take it back and offer nothing. I mean to push someone to drive you around all day, then assume they basically want to personally be financially responsible for 100% of the risk as well seems a bit thankless and arrogant.

If I get into an accident with a work car I'm covered, and I'm being paid so you could argue my responsibility level there would be more than if I'm driving someone else's ass around for free. Thoughts?

[ES_Revenge]

Given the circumstances if he were to sue the friend, I doubt he would get 100% of the cost of the damage, though he would probably win. Given that's the case I think a settlement of 50% without taking it to court or breaking up the friendship over, is certainly reasonable. However from the sounds of it, it doesn't sound like your friend is going to stay friends with this person anyway given your friend thinks he is entitled to 100%

[seadog83]

I don't think he would win if he sued. The car is insured not the driver, and as the owner of the car/policy, you're responsible for what authorized drivers do aren't you? Isn't that how photo radar works? I know other ppl are covered on my car, but it comes from my policy nonetheless.

And realistically they probably wont see each other again anyway, they met while travelling and by chance had some work in a place near where he lived.

[fastlayne]

As we all know, here in Ontario, if you lend your vehicle, you are also lending your insurance.

It is not clear if your friend, while overseas, owns the vehicle or is renting or has access to a work vehicle.

But regardless of the ownership of the vehicle, if the insurance of the land works like Ontario, your friend took the risk when asking the acquaintance to drive.

If he was renting, he definitely took the risk by allowing another driver.

And if it was a work vehicle, he likely had no permission to loan the vehicle.

Seems like your friend should be filing a claim.

[ES_Revenge]

Insurance does stay with the car but if the car doesn't have collision insurance and/or there is a deductible (damage might not even meet the deductible), someone is still responsible. Who is that someone? Why the driver of course.

[seadog83]

I would argue no. I'm not responsible for any sort of deductible at work if I crash. If a professional chauffeur crashed his millionaire employer's car I would presume he isn't either.

Does the fact that my friend pushed this guy to drive his vomiting ass around not come into it at all? You're saying there's no difference between this and if he borrowed his car so he could go show off for some girl.

Given those two situations I'd say its a lot closer to being a chauffeur. If you're not comfortable with someones skills behind the wheel, don't ask them to drive your car.

The owner of the car can't have it both ways, all the benefit/right of being driven around with none of the responsibilities. Likewise the driver had no rights. He didn't set the schedule or destination and was going out of his way and giving up his time for nothing, therefore I think hes free of responsibility. Do you think he should he also be splitting the gas since he gets to drive?

[ES_Revenge]

I would argue no.

Of course not because people should just get into cars crash into anything they like while sucking at driving and then find any excuse in the world as to why they aren't possibly responsible. In this case "oh it's not my car, I'm not responsible".

Unfortunately this is the way the driver's licensing system works. The government teaches you by their own actions--scapegoat whatever you can whenever you can

I suppose if the driver of the vehicle had run down a person and killed them, it would also not be their fault because hey, it's not their car right?

[rems]

Of course not because people should just get into cars crash into anything they like while sucking at driving and then find any excuse in the world as to why they aren't possibly responsible. In this case "oh it's not my car, I'm not responsible".

Unfortunately this is the way the driver's licensing system works. The government teaches you by their own actions--scapegoat whatever you can whenever you can

I suppose if the driver of the vehicle had run down a person and killed them, it would also not be their fault because hey, it's not their car right?

I think the original situation is different though. The driver was asked to by the owner to drive the vehicle. By asking them to drive you assume the liability of what they will do. I mean he could have called an ambulance or taken a cab... Unless the driver maliciously and intentionally got into the "accident" then I dont think he should be held liable for the damages.

[seadog83]

ES, You're extending the situation beyond what it was. If the driver said 'Hey I don't have a car and wondered if I could borrow yours to get groceries" then I agree 100% he is responsible. Plus there's a world of difference between being absent minded and causing $500 in damage and maliciously running people down on purpose...

So the guy who writes off a work truck in your opinion *should* by on the hook for $100k? The pilot who crashes a plane due to pilot error for $50m?

Once your going out of your way to do someone a solid, I think that the person asking the favour needs to do anything they can to reduce any further inconvenience. If you got drunk and asked a friend to drive you and your car home, and had a small accident, would it really be 'Thanks for the lift, here's your bill for damages'?

It sorta reminded me of a situation a few years ago a friend moved across the country, and wanted me to come help him drive so he could get there sooner. After I declined, I found out he was assuming I'd split gas and get home on my own. Just sort of the thanklessness of it.

[at1212b]

If you 'beg' someone to drive your car, I believe you have to take partial responsibility for it, otherwise, just drive on your own.

At the end of the day, even if there is a deductible to be paid, it is the owner's name that is associated with the insurance and therefore ultimately responsible for the coverage. The friend who got into the accident could be prick about it and not pay anything, therefore the owner would have to intiate on trying to recoup costs somehow from his friends (through legal or other means).

[ES_Revenge]

ES, You're extending the situation beyond what it was. If the driver said 'Hey I don't have a car and wondered if I could borrow yours to get groceries" then I agree 100% he is responsible.

Now see that percentage of agreement there? Well that idea of percentages is exactly how a civil court would decide the degree of responsibility of the defendant (the friend driving).

Plus there's a world of difference between being absent minded and causing $500 in damage and maliciously running people down on purpose...

I didn't mean to compare to someone running down someone on purpose, people could do it just as "absent mindedly" as hitting a post in a parking lot. The point is you don't get in a car be "absent minded", hit things, and then think you're not at all responsible. That's the thinking that leads to the state of road safety we have today--no one wants to take responsibility for anything, it's always someone else's fault. You know the drunks, the street racers, that tree that jumped in your way, etc. Never should we ever decide that we as drivers should take some responsibility right?

Here's what I'm saying. The accident itself, from the sounds of it, (however large or small, whether it involved a kid on a bicycle or a pole in a vacant lot) is the driver's fault. He is responsible. No it wasn't the dog barking at the nearby house's, it wasn't the scantily clad hot chick walking by's fault, it wasn't the Devil whispering in his ear to bust up said vehicle's fault.

Now no certainly the driver did not borrow the car from your friend, go out on a joyride and bring it back with damage on it. Then surely he would be 100% responsible. In this case he was doing a good deed/favour for a friend, but evenso that doesn't mean the friend told him to suck at driving and go and hit things. I mean this doesn't even sound like that much of an "accident" here. It's not like some other driver turned in front of him and he had to slam on the brakes and swerve and then ended up in an accident because of it. It sounds like the driver just hit something in a parking lot due to his own "absent mindedness" or just inability to drive. Absent mindedness is not some kind of catch all to do whatever the heck you want and magically absolve yourself of any/all responsibilty.

What the guy should have told your friend is "Look I suck at driving I don't want to drive your car. I don't have my own car and don't drive very often so I don't want to take any chances with yours because driving is a serious business and though you can't drive in your condition, me taking our lives in my incapable hands is an even worse idea." But obviously that's not what the driver said, is it?

Yes you should be repsonsible for the people you give your keys to and say "here drive" but there is certainly responsibility on the part of the person receiving the keys to say "hey I can't drive" if that's the case.

So the guy who writes off a work truck in your opinion *should* by on the hook for $100k? The pilot who crashes a plane due to pilot error for $50m?

No that's a bit of a different story. If you have a pen at work required to do your job and you break the pen, well you're not going to have to go and buy another one, you'll just get another one from your workplace. But if your friend gives you a pen and says here "write this" and you do and you break the pen through your inability to properly use a pen, well yeah you're probably responsible to pay for at least some of the replacement value of the pen. (Now realistically unless this was a $100 pen no one is going to get you to pay like $0.16 of your share to replace said pen, lol; but you get the picture.)

The driver here was not employed by the friend per se--no money changed hands, no compensation of any kind. This cannot be compared to the situation of employment.

Let's look at it another way. If the driver got pulled over for say making a right on red where there was a sign prohibiting the driver to do so, would the driver be able to say "hey this is this guy's car--->"? Would the police then say "ohhhh sorry I didn't know that!" and then proceed to walk around to the pax side and give the ticket to the owner of the vehicle? I mean afterall there can't possibly be any responsibility for the driver to drive properly right? LOL. Obviously that's not going to happen.

So the driver is clearly responsible for the accident itself; but, now the question is to what degree are they responsible for the damages caused by the accident (i.e. the $$$). Well that would be up to a court to decide if it ever went to court. And really I don't think the court would just say hey, it's 0% the defendants fault, because the defendant was driving--they were in control of the vehicle, they caused the accident. There would have to be some percentage of responsibility.

Once your going out of your way to do someone a solid, I think that the person asking the favour needs to do anything they can to reduce any further inconvenience.

You're certainly free to think that but that doesn't mean that would be how the case would be decided in reality. Furthermore I don't think if you were the defendant using the defence that "hey I was doing this guy a solid" ( ) would really help you out either, lol.

If you got drunk and asked a friend to drive you and your car home, and had a small accident, would it really be 'Thanks for the lift, here's your bill for damages'?

Them's the breaks. You don't get in a car and drive around and hit things, big or small; whether you're driving your own car or someone else's or someone else's as a favour, doesn't mean you hit stuff and have no reponsibility for it. Now if you were the drunk friend then yeah you might certainly say "hey you know what you were doing me a solid, don't worry about the damage". But someone else might not. There's an old saying... "No good deed goes unpunsihed."

And let's extend it a bit further... What if the friend had also been drinking and thought they shouldn't drive? Would it not be their responsibility to say "hey dude I'd love to do you a solid but I can't drive either"? I think you'd agree that they should. Same thing should go if the driver isn't a good/capable driver, no?

It sorta reminded me of a situation a few years ago a friend moved across the country, and wanted me to come help him drive so he could get there sooner. After I declined, I found out he was assuming I'd split gas and get home on my own. Just sort of the thanklessness of it.

At the same time you assumed he would be seeing it as you doing him a favour not you going for a ride where you'd pay for gas and your way back. I.e. probably not a good idea to assume anything about someone you don't know very very well (and even then probably still a good idea to get everything clear before agreeing to it). You can treat people the way you'd have them treat you, but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to treat you that way unfortunately.

[edifonzo]

EDITED FOR CLARITY

1. (THE OP's FRIEND) staying with (THE CAR OWNER).
2. (THE OP's FRIEND) asked (THE CAR OWNER) to drive (THE OP's FRIEND) around.
3. (THE CAR OWNER) agreed.
4. (THE CAR OWNER) has accident.
6. (THE CAR OWNER) offers to pay half. ?????!!!!!
5. (THE OP's FRIEND) thinks the car owner should pay 100%.
6. (THE CAR OWNER) is pissed.

I hate you OP. You post is so unclear I can't follow it.

Here it is in BC, car owner pays insurance, car is insured not the driver. Car gets in accident, car owners insurance pays and goes up. END OF STORY

Unless the sick guy put a gun to the car owners head then the car owner is out of luck.

Everyone that has posted has mis-read to OP's post, not hard with all the hes.

OP's friend is not liable in the least bit, was a nice dude and offered to pay half. Should tell car owner to STFU.

CAR OWNER WAS DRIVING!

[JohnB]

/\


If the car owner was driving his own car why is it even a question?

I think his friend with no insurance was driving....

[jetway1212]

Gosh too much misleading info in this thread. Some replies are ridiculously long for nothing.

Here in Ontario,

The driver will get charged for any traffic violations: speeding, red light, or..... RAN over somebody.

The car owner's insurance will have to pay for all the damages caused by the driver.

The car owner can then take the driver to court if he/she thinks they got a case.

END of STORY

OP, i dont see why you even bother arguing with your friend over this. You can see his selfishness. Be his friend or foe, your decision. Dont get involve.

[HP_John]

I think more people should be careful about lending their car out, a lot of times it can really end a friendship if an accident happens with a borrowed car