How many times have you said to the woman, child or friend to take my car and not thought of it? Even if it's just a short road trip to the shops, you and the person you lend your car, may have violated the law! In addition, if the person you lend the car, ready to turn the car to another, you will be responsible for any damage caused by the other party if you were aware of their use or not.
If you own a car anddecide to take it to another person, it is your responsibility to verify that the person you pay to have car insurance and adequate coverage that extends to the conduct of other vehicles. If you are unable to make reasonable checks to verify these details you may be liable for any damage that the person you lent it to causes, and, in fact, you may find yourself on the end of a police chase to allow an uninsured driver to use a motor vehicle in contravention of section 143 ofLaw on Road Traffic. It is also to ensure that the person you lend him not to allow others to drive it.
In the UK, this principle has been established in the law of the United Kingdom in 1934 in the case of v Warbey Monk and others. Mr. Warbey owner of a car that was insured driver's license for himself and other members of his family. He lent his friend Mr. Knowles, who in turn lent it to May 1, Mr.'s license. At some point during use of the car of Mr. Maywas involved in an accident where he was held responsible, with a car driven by Mr. Monk. Neither Mr. Knowles May had insurance for liability risks, and neither had the means or funds to satisfy judgments against them in court. It was decided that Mr. Warbey had initially committed a breach of the duty of the sub-section 1 of Article 143 of the Road Traffic Act, by separating the control of the car to someone who was uninsured, and it was therefore liable forall damages and costs.
It was found in the court that Mr. Warbey had been informed prior to the separation from the vehicle that neither Mr. Knowles, Mr. May was not adequately insured to cover the car and the third took no action to address them. Warbey counsel argued that the car accident involving May was too far from the violation of the law to Warbey Warbey liable for damages to third parties. The judge disagreed and Warbey was found liable, andprinciple set by this case remains in the UK law of the current day. Until then the law does not extend liability to users of cars to third parties, beyond the requirements of the common law, but the decision in this case requires that the owner of a car, if they automobile insurance or not, an additional duty to a third party and allows any third party to recover damages from the owner of the car which allows the car to be usedso, knowingly or not.
The only exception to this rule in the case of employees who use a car belonging to their employer, when the driver of the car were reasonable grounds for believing that the insurance was in force when the use of the car.
It would therefore be very careful if you checked the levels of coverage for your own auto insurance policy before consenting to the use of your vehicle by another, and even certify that they arecovered by your auto insurance or current. Not doing so could lead you to court!
