ADUK Archive

A driving examiner is suing for damages after claiming he was hurt by the worst learner driver he has ever seen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 895353.stm

Sound's like the examiner knows an Ambulance Chaser! I'd have thought his employer's insurance would have been liable, as the alleged injury was incurred during the course of his employment.

I was just reading this story on the BBC site and wondered about posting it. Have to say it doesn't portray him in the best light but I have no idea what is expected of an examiner - presumably they can abort the test at any time they don't feel comfortable?

Chris

I've just seen this in today's paper. He's also got 2 other cases pending so I agree with the ambulance chasing sentiment.

As he was in a driving school car (he's suing the instructor's insurers) he would have had dual controls, and unless the passenger seat belt was faulty, he shouldn't have been "thrown forward and back".

Incidentally, he refers to a "three point turn". I understood it was "a turn in the road using forward & reverse gears"

Sounds like he's the examiner from hell who gives the majority a bad name

Renny wrote:A driving examiner is suing for damages after claiming he was hurt by the worst learner driver he has ever seen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 895353.stm

Sound's like the examiner knows an Ambulance Chaser! I'd have thought his employer's insurance would have been liable, as the alleged injury was incurred during the course of his employment.

His employer will only be liable if it has been negligent. I would have thought it would be much easier to prove the driver was driving negligently than his employer was negligent by expecting him to conduct the test in the first place.

Very unlucky to have suffered three injuries in as many years through candidates' bad driving.

Pathetic! 15 grand for a whiplash claim, seems to me he's milking that one a bit, on the other hand if that pupil was really that bad she shouldn't have been presented for test either.

Insurers generally do not let claims get to court unless they feel that it is more probable than not that they will win.

It seems in this case that the insurers don't think he has a valid claim either.

Funny how prejudice works...he doesn't look like a typical DSA examiner in my eyes...more like an ageing League 2 football player.

Be interesting to see the result of his case...presumably when, sorry 'if' he loses he could be asked to pay significant costs?

It seems the examiner has been successful in his action
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7899473.stm

This is the society we live in nowadays ... (rant, moan, mumble, mumble ... )

Gradually all our insurance premiums are being driven inexorably up by people like him.

My 'flabber' has rarely been so 'gasted'!

Does sound a ludicrous ruling - unless something important has been missed from the media reports.

I'd laugh if he's awarded £1.

If the driving was that poor, and likely to cause danger to the public, he should have terminated the test.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

It seems to me that the court has forgotten one important thing.

The driver in this case was a provisional license holder, which means the examiner was her supervisor, and as such bears a degree of responsibility for her behavior. As others have said if her driving was indeed careless, he should not have allowed the test to continue, and one could argue that his failure to do so contributed to his injuries.

This is not the first time for a claim like this. I vaguely remember reading about something similar about the the time I passed my test, although I cannot remember the result of that case.

Interesting point.
A provisional licence holder must, by law, have a suitably qualified driver in the vehicle with them who is effectively 'in charge' of that vehicle - or have I got that wrong

If I am right, then the examiner is in charge - if not right, then there is a provisional licence holder in charge.

Which is it

ROG wrote:Interesting point.
A provisional licence holder must, by law, have a suitably qualified driver in the vehicle with them who is effectively 'in charge' of that vehicle - or have I got that wrong

If I understand it right, the full license holder is supervising the learner, rather than being in charge.

Ultimately I would think that the responsibility is joint. Certainly if the learner committed an offense the supervisor could very well be prosecuted for 'permitting'. Of course without (and probably even with) dual controls a very determined learner could override the supervisor, and there would come a point where the supervisors responsibility would have to be limited.

I agree that he should have terminated the test.

I can't remember if there is a different view on "Supervising" during a driving test.