Car Insurance – Lending Your Car Could Land You in Jail

How great number times have you said to the wife, children or a friend ‘take my car’ and not thought any more of it? Even whether it’s just a short trip down the road to the shops, you and the living body you lend your car to, may be breaking the law! Furthermore whether or not the person you lend the car to, in turn lends the car to one more, you will be held liable for any damages caused by the other circle, whether you were aware of their use or not.

If you have a car and decide to lend it to another person, it is your trust to check that the person you lend it to have competent car insurance and that their cover extends to driving other vehicles. If you neglect to make reasonable checks to verify these details you could be liable for subsequent damage that the person you lent it to causes, and indeed, you may fall upon yourself on the end of a police prosecution for allowing one uninsured driver to use a motor vehicle contrary of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act. It is furthermore you responsibility to ensure that the person you lend it to does not give leave to others to drive it.

In the United Kingdom, this principle was leading established in UK law back in 1934 in the case of Monk v Warbey and Others. Mr Warbey owned a car which was insured to permit driving by himself and other members of his clan. He lent it to his friend Mr Knowles who in proclivity lent it to a Mr May to drive. At some time for the time of use of the car Mr May was involved in an hap for which he was deemed responsible, with a car driven ~ the agency of Mr Monk. Neither May nor Mr Knowles had insurance for third part party risks and neither had the means or funds to discharge the judgement in court against them. It was held that Mr Warbey had originally committed a variance of duty of sub section 1 of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act, ~ the agency of parting with the control of the car to a person who was not insured, and he was consequently held liable for all damages and costs.

It was found in court that Mr Warbey had been informed earlier to parting with the Vehicle that neither Mr Knowles nor Mr May had equal car insurance covering third party risks and had taken no steps to counteractive this. Counsel for Warbey argued that the car accident involving May was overmuch far removed from Warbey’s breach of the statute to constitution Warbey liable for damages to the third party. The Judge disagreed and Warbey was set up liable, and the principle enacted by this case remains in UK form to the current day. Up until this point in time the Act did not continue liability to users of cars to third parties, beyond the requirements of indifferent law, but the decision in this particular case imposes upon the holder of a car, whether they have car insurance or not, every additional duty to injured third parties and enables any third body to recover damages from the car owner who permits his car to be used in such a way, knowingly or not.

The only non-inclusion to this rule is in the case of employees using a car owned through their employer, where the person driving the car had reasonable precipitate to believe that insurance was in force when the used the car.

It would thence be very prudent if you checked the levels of cover of your possess car insurance policy before agreeing to the use of your carriage by another, and indeed certify that they are covered by one or the other your own or their current car insurance. Failure to do in this way could land you in the courts!