1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
INSURANCE CLAIM
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QWe have three minibuses with which we transport handicapped children and elderly people. In January one of our vehicles was involved in a minor accident with some children aboard. One of the children was slightly hurt and the parents think we should make a claim against the other vehicle as it was their fault.
We took advice and were told it really would not be sensible because the court would want proof of injury leading to disability. However, during an exchange of letters between insurance companies it became apparent that the other vehicle was saying it was not responsible as another vehicle had made it swerve into our vehicle. This vehicle cannot be traced. I always thought that the "knock for knock" principle would apply. TM, Bristol AYes, it would, if the third party could not produce an independent witness to the rogue vehicle. If they could, the fight could go on for years and would most probably end in both parties bearing the costs of their own damages.
You should also look at the fine print on your own policy with regard to your liabilities towards your invalid passengers and get the advice of a specialist broker.