Learner driver 'was worst ever'

[MGF]

I am not aware of a case involving an examiner however the case of Nettleship v Weston involved a learner receiving instruction from a family friend who suffered a broken knee-cap as a result of her driving.


The standard of care expected of a learner driver is the same as that of a driver who has passed their test.

If an instructor (and I see no reason why this would not apply to an examiner or indeed any supervisor) has their own insurance then he may be deemed to be waiving his right to claim from the learner.



Do examiners insist on seeing your insurance policy before you take the test? If so it is almost certain they are not waiving their right to claim.

I agree that contributory negligence is a possibility as the examiner would be expected to stop the test if the driver is driving dangerously (although not necessarily carelessly??). I believe contributory negligence is considered at the same time as damages rather than the initial trial.

Have a look at this link to see the sort of money you are likely to get for whiplash injuries.

[fungus]

When taking a DSA driving test, a candidate signs the examiners marking sheet to declare that the vehicle is insured for their use. The examiner does not ask to see an insurance certificate.

To my knowledge the examiner is not a supervising driver. The forty minutes of the driving test is the only time that a provisional licence holder is permited to drive unsupervised. If the candidates driving is of a manner that endangers the public, the examiner will terminate the test and walk back to the test centre or find some other way of getting back. They are not permitted to drive the candidates, or driving school car.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[waremark]

Very interesting. Do you think that in practise the fact that the learner is not technically being supervised during the driving test leads to a higher incidence of accidents during the test than during the learning process?

My sons took their tests in a family car. It had not occured to me to worry that it (or my sons!) might be unduly at risk during the test - but then I would not have been happy for them to take their tests if I was not also happy for them to drive on their own as soon as they passed.

[fungus]

Whilst the examiner is not technically supervising, they will intervene either verbally, or physicaly, to prevent an accident. So no, I don,t think there is a higher incidence of accidents on test than there is during lessons.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[zadocbrown]

Does anyone else think it sounds rather improbable that a whiplash should be caused simply by hard braking? I've been subjected to plenty of emergency stops and never felt there was any risk to myself.

[MGF]

How does a doctor diagnose whiplash?

"Usually the diagnosis is made on the basis of the background of the injury and the patient's description of symptoms. Whiplash cannot be seen on an MRI scan, CT scan or X-ray, although an X-ray is taken if there is a suspicion of fracture or dislocation of the cervical spine."

Od course, I am not suggesting he might be exaggeating his symptoms.

Do you brace yourself for a planned emergency stop, thereby reducing the effects of being thrown forward?

[Big Err]

Does anyone else think it sounds rather improbable that a whiplash should be caused simply by hard braking? I've been subjected to plenty of emergency stops and never felt there was any risk to myself.

Do you think the examiner should be recording the test as an injury accident for police stats?

[ExadiNigel]

A provisional licence holder, when on test, is considered a special case and does not need to be supervised. Hence an examiner is NOT supervising, simply conducting a test. Considering what had gone on I think he should have terminated the test earlier.

Nigel

[Renny]

A provisional licence holder, when on test, is considered a special case and does not need to be supervised. Hence an examiner is NOT supervising, simply conducting a test. Considering what had gone on I think he should have terminated the test earlier.

Nigel

That was what I thought. I agree with Nigel, he should have terminated earlier. I wonder how his other 2 claims will progress?

[zadocbrown]

I agree with Nigel, he should have terminated earlier.

Maybe he had his own reasons for not doing so? Very unlucky chap to have 3 injury claims running at once.

[jbsportstech]

Shame seems he is a greedy and just after money. He has probably been turned by some ambulance chaser who has made outragous claims of compensation he could receive. Couple that with the fact he was either never or is no longer interested in good driver training.

I had a accident while at work where I was on site where some idiot site manager had located a site unit on an area of broken concrete which was once a foundation for a building. As I exited the unit, the concrete I stood on moved and I went over badly on my ankle. I was in alot of pain and could not drive, and my ankle swelled up badly, had 3 days off work on full pay. Although the company's site manager should of insured the site was safe I have never taken up a claim despite being promised thousands and pestured by accident claims people as I assume a certain amount of danger in my profession and I am not keen on the blame culture.

[Grumpyoldwoman]

That poor pupil. Not only has she Failed her test (the word 'Fail' is enough to break anyone), it's reinforced by all this negativity.

Possibly another person put off doing it the 'right' way or not at all in the future.

Sounds like she either had an incompetent ADI or none at all or worst of all, her parents teaching her to save money.