The Lemon Fool

An interesting and rather sad report of a car accident where a woman ran off the road and hit a train, severely injuring her son, who was a passenger in the car.

The son is suing his mother, and this hearing was to try to establish whether the mother was actually to blame or not.

The key evidence was that her phone records showed that she'd sent 4 texts to her boss in the few minutes before the collision, and the conclusion was that because she'd been distracted by this she failed to realise what was happening in front of her, panicked and steered the car into a problem instead of away from it.

She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

Irrespective of her stupidity and mendacity she must be going through hell ...

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/650.html

And not for the first time it strikes me that there must be a better way of dealing with situations like this, and paying for the care that the child needs, than effectively forcing him to sue his mother.

Clitheroekid wrote:And not for the first time it strikes me that there must be a better way of dealing with situations like this, and paying for the care that the child needs, than effectively forcing him to sue his mother.

Quite on the contrary, motor insurance exists for a reason. What you describe is a clear-cut case of where insurer and not taxpayer should be on the hook for any compensation costs. The hidden subsidy of taxpayer support for RTA victims (and indeed lack of any support for many) is a major market distortion compared to rail travel.

Perhaps all would be simpler if a criminal conviction (some appropriate flavour of careless/negligent driving) could generate an automatic civil claim against the insurer for any victim. Your profession's role would migrate from fighting a case to assessing details of a claim. Including perhaps larger numbers of smaller claims for victims of less-serious consequences.

ps. you say "hit a train". A collision with a moving train, or just a train that happened to be there as, say, a wall or a tree, or an innocent pedestrian, might have done?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:And not for the first time it strikes me that there must be a better way of dealing with situations like this, and paying for the care that the child needs, than effectively forcing him to sue his mother.

Quite on the contrary, motor insurance exists for a reason. What you describe is a clear-cut case of where insurer and not taxpayer should be on the hook for any compensation costs. The hidden subsidy of taxpayer support for RTA victims (and indeed lack of any support for many) is a major market distortion compared to rail travel.

Perhaps all would be simpler if a criminal conviction (some appropriate flavour of careless/negligent driving) could generate an automatic civil claim against the insurer for any victim. Your profession's role would migrate from fighting a case to assessing details of a claim. Including perhaps larger numbers of smaller claims for victims of less-serious consequences.

ps. you say "hit a train". A collision with a moving train, or just a train that happened to be there as, say, a wall or a tree, or an innocent pedestrian, might have done?

What would have happened had the kid been injured in the accident as a bystander?
Does being in his mother's car preclude him from claiming against her negligence?

- sd

UncleEbenezer wrote:ps. you say "hit a train". A collision with a moving train, or just a train that happened to be there as, say, a wall or a tree, or an innocent pedestrian, might have done?

???? The answer is in the linked text barely a few lines down!



GS

GoSeigen wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:ps. you say "hit a train". A collision with a moving train, or just a train that happened to be there as, say, a wall or a tree, or an innocent pedestrian, might have done?

???? The answer is in the linked text barely a few lines down!



GS

Bah. I don't know how I missed the existence of any link in the OP. I shall have to blame the Lurgy (having tested covid-positive on Tuesday).

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I note this is a report on the civil case for damages, but it doesn't make any mention of whether the mother was prosecuted for her poor driving.

For the criminal investigation the police could have issued a s49 notice requiring her to disclose the PIN with a potential two year prison term if she declined, but perhaps they didn't think it passed the 'proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition' test and either they believed they had enough evidence to convict anyway or had decided not to prosecute (I can see there are reports on the internet of the original crash, but nothing after that).

Having read the court report in full, I am left wondering about car insurance. If I have car insurance, but I am over the alcohol (or drug) limit, doesn't this invalidate the car insurance? If so, if I am sending texts while driving, dosn't this also invalidate the car insurance?

To my mind, it puts quite a different perspective on the case, as opposed to trying to get money out of an insurance company.

Bminusrob wrote:Having read the court report in full, I am left wondering about car insurance. If I have car insurance, but I am over the alcohol (or drug) limit, doesn't this invalidate the car insurance? If so, if I am sending texts while driving, dosn't this also invalidate the car insurance?

To my mind, it puts quite a different perspective on the case, as opposed to trying to get money out of an insurance company.

AIUI the 3rd party liability cannot be removed/denied. Any invalidation would only be 1st party cover eg the mother herself.

Otherwise a genuinely separate person that endures hardship/loss etc wouldn't be covered etc, and the likelihood of receiving sufficient recompense for the most life altering injuries etc (in extreme cases) via for example suing the driver that was subsequently invalidated wrt insurance could be minimal - few people have the means to pay somebody else potentially millions over decades. Even more prosaic levels of cover such as paying for a replacement vehicle worth eg 20K could be beyond immediate recompense wrt returning the 3rd party to the position they were in prior to the accident etc

Bminusrob wrote:Having read the court report in full, I am left wondering about car insurance. If I have car insurance, but I am over the alcohol (or drug) limit, doesn't this invalidate the car insurance? If so, if I am sending texts while driving, dosn't this also invalidate the car insurance?

To my mind, it puts quite a different perspective on the case, as opposed to trying to get money out of an insurance company.

Isn't that a different issue? A driver's deliberately reckless or negligent behaviour might affect insurance towards them, but an innocent third-party's claim shouldn't be affected?

Clitheroekid wrote:And not for the first time it strikes me that there must be a better way of dealing with situations like this, and paying for the care that the child needs, than effectively forcing him to sue his mother.

Applying the same dubious logic that interweb providers are supposed to police everything posted on their sites, one could make the phone cos disable mobiles that are moving at more than x mph.

As to compensating the child or any other passenger, there has to be legal liability, so I presume liability will have to be legally established.
I wonder who ends up paying, hopefully not me.

V8

88V8 wrote:Applying the same dubious logic that interweb providers are supposed to police everything posted on their sites, one could make the phone cos disable mobiles that are moving at more than x mph.
V8

It's not the phone that's the deadly weapon. Mine is particularly useful when I'm on a train and working out a connection.

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Moreover the police got the information about the texts anyway, presumably from the phone service provider via some kind of court order or subpoena?

UncleEbenezer wrote:Bah. I don't know how I missed the existence of any link in the OP. I shall have to blame the Lurgy (having tested covid-positive on Tuesday).

Ouch, get well soon. Hopefully it's omicron which I recovered from in a few days...

GS

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Yes. It is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecu ... -password/

RockRabbit wrote:

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Yes. It is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecu ... -password/

Utter nonsense. The offence is failing to disclose the password having been correctly served notice under s49 of RIPA. Police cannot merely request the password.

GS

GoSeigen wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Yes. It is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecu ... -password/

Utter nonsense. The offence is failing to disclose the password having been correctly served notice under s49 of RIPA. Police cannot merely request the password.

GS

Why is it nonsense? The question was - 'are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party. Yes you are, under certain circumstances, hence my use of the word 'potential' and the link I provided gave the legal explanation of RIPA S49. I didn't realise that Lemon Fool required that I provide the full legal explanation!

RockRabbit wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Yes. It is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecu ... -password/

Utter nonsense. The offence is failing to disclose the password having been correctly served notice under s49 of RIPA. Police cannot merely request the password.

GS

Why is it nonsense? The question was - 'are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party. Yes you are, under certain circumstances, hence my use of the word 'potential' and the link I provided gave the legal explanation of RIPA S49. I didn't realise that Lemon Fool required that I provide the full legal explanation!

Even the description in the link is unacceptable. Fact is notice to disclose this information requires the written permission of a Judge or a District Judge which will be given only in limited relevant circumstances. Your statement that "yes, it is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested" is rather misleading. I don't think there are any circumstances in which it would be criminal to refuse a mere "request".


GS
P.S. This might have been pretty relevant in a case I was directly involved in when a lone plod turned up at my house at 10:30pm demanding I turn over the phone of a 13 year old child of a friend who was visiting us else he would order an immediate search of my entire property. It's hard enough defending your rights in such circumstances even without having dodgy statements from a bulletin board bouncing around in your head...

Lootman wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:She then compounded the error by lying about it, and "without plausible explanation, was unable to disclose her PIN number to the police" so that the police were unable to read the texts.

I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Moreover the police got the information about the texts anyway, presumably from the phone service provider via some kind of court order or subpoena?

Indeed, that's how it reads to me. It's the existence, not the contents, of the texts that is relevant here. I'd read not supplying the PIN to police as an aside, irrelevant except insofar as it was presented - with more genuinely relevant facts - as part of a pattern of non-cooperative behaviour.

Which kind-of begs a hypothetical question. If the verdict had relied on her (in itself perfectly proper) failure to disclose a PIN, would that not make rather strong grounds for appeal?

GoSeigen wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:

Lootman wrote:I had not thought about that before, but are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party? I would have thought not, since we are always being told not to give out such information to anyone.

Yes. It is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/prosecu ... -password/

Utter nonsense. The offence is failing to disclose the password having been correctly served notice under s49 of RIPA. Police cannot merely request the password.

GS

Why is it nonsense? The question was - 'are you under any legal obligation to disclose a PIN or password to a third party. Yes you are, under certain circumstances, hence my use of the word 'potential' and the link I provided gave the legal explanation of RIPA S49. I didn't realise that Lemon Fool required that I provide the full legal explanation!

Even the description in the link is unacceptable. Fact is notice to disclose this information requires the written permission of a Judge or a District Judge which will be given only in limited relevant circumstances. Your statement that "yes, it is a potential criminal offence not to disclose your password to police if requested" is rather misleading. I don't think there are any circumstances in which it would be criminal to refuse a mere "request".


GS
P.S. This might have been pretty relevant in a case I was directly involved in when a lone plod turned up at my house at 10:30pm demanding I turn over the phone of a 13 year old child of a friend who was visiting us else he would order an immediate search of my entire property. It's hard enough defending your rights in such circumstances even without having dodgy statements from a bulletin board bouncing around in your head...

You are being very pedantic here which I feel is completely unnecessary. As you say, this is a bulletin board. I am not providing legal advice and this is not a court of law. The way a question is answered depends on context and in the context of the way the question was asked (a general interest query not a specific event) and the environment it was asked in (ie a general interest bulletin board), I believe my answer was entirely appropriate. RIPA S49 is below:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/49