Legal Procedure That Mr Johnson Might Deal within the Case - Essay Example

?Legal Research Table of Contents Introduction 3 Case Overview 4 Relevant Laws 5 Advice to Mr. Johnson 6 Legal Procedure that Mr. Johnson might Deal with in the Case 7 Advice to Mr. Johnson to Approach in this Case 9 Conclusion 11 References 13 Introduction Ruling of accidental cases have been subjected to many legal criticisms based on differentiated inferences. Accidental events usually depict a negative outcome, which could have been shunned or prevented subjected to the prior recognition or prediction of the unfavourable circumstances1. Certainly, occurrences of accidental events are mainly caused due to particular fatal human error, which might not be deliberate but results from carelessness from the either or both parties. Accidents can take several forms and each one of those might produce diverse results ranging from minor to moderate to fatal injuries. Among the major forms of accidents that take place, road accidents are deemed to have the potential of much frequent occurrence2. Notably, the common grounds of court ruling in road accidents take into account the duty of care beard by the road users, contributory negligence performed by the driver(s) and insurance coverage of the driver(s), in order to rule the offence and correspondingly deliver opinion on the liabilities of the driver. The ultimate ruling may affirm that i) one of the parties involved in the accident was entirely faulty, which caused the accident and thus the liability is to be bestowed on that party completely; ii) both the parties involved were equally liable for the damages caused due to the road accident and must be charged with 50:50 liabilities in compensating each other’s losses; iii) either of the parties involved in the road accident was more responsible than the other and therefore the liability shall be shared in a proportion where one party bears more but not the entire compensation than the other party involved3. Taking into account these principles along with other statutory provisions, the aim of the paper will be to analyze a particular case related to road accident. Subsequently, the paper will provide advice to the victim of the accident described in the section of case overview regarding all the legal procedures thereafter. Case Overview Headed for celebrating a short weekend holiday in their campervan, Mr. Johnson and his family had to experience a fatal accident, where the driver in the other car was killed. The driver in the other car, D, had been driving erratically when it hit Mr. Johnson’s campervan. When police arrived to the accident scene, even though they conceded that Mr. Johnson was not faulty, they charged Mr. Johnson for the death of D. The other relevant particulars of the case state that Mr. Johnson’s campervan was uninsured and that he too did not possess a full license, which, according to the police made him chargeable under the relevant act. Additionally, further investigation to the accident revealed that the D was under the influence of alcohol when driving, which was the cause of his driving erratically and had further caused his death in the road accident. Undoubtedly, the point of concern in this case is to justify the proportionate liability of Mr. Johnson and make him bear least liability of the accident. Relevant Laws In the case of Mr. Johnson and D, the applicable statues will be under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the relevant Tort of Negligence. As a matter of fact, the proportionate liability chargeable for Mr. Johnson and D will be required to be considered in ruling the compensation liability of Mr. Johnson. As disclosed in the above mentioned case, where Mr. Johnson was hit by another driver, in-spite of the fact that he/she was driving within the prescribed speed limit, Section 125 of the Highway Code of UK rules that being in a particular speed limit does not signify it is safe and justified to drive for any particular situation and get exempted from the liability of the road accident damages. Although charges and penalties in such cases are minimal, a legal procedure is mandatory to be dealt with. Driving uninsured might also have stern as well as unfavourable impacts for an individual, in case he/she gets involved in any sort of accidents. For e.g. it might happen that one of the two or more drivers involved in the accident has minimal faults owing to his/her adherence to driving standards. However, if that driver is uninsured, he/she will need to deal with certain stern legal proceedings of inappropriate driving causing death or other personal injury to the parties involved. They shall also be considered chargeable for indirect injuries, such as mental disorders resulting from the accident, which can involve the driver(s), or secondary victims involving passengers of the vehicle or any witness of the accident [McLoughlin v O’Brian (1982); Hinz v Berry (1970); Hambrook v Stokes Bros (1925)]4. As per the statutory norms, in such proceedings, proper adherence to driving standards of the uninsured driver will not be taken into consideration and charges of imprisonment or fines will be applied accordingly and shall be treated under the Tort of Negligence laws as relevant5. Apart from the Tort of Negligence statutes and the Highway Code of UK, the Road Traffic Act 1988 can be deemed applicable in this case. This similar approach of legal authorities can also be seen in cases where the person is driving without a license [R v Hughes [2011] EWCA Crim 1508]6. In such scenario too, the unlicensed driver will not get the benefit of his/her standard driving approach and subsequently, charges will be enforced upon him/her in accordance to the severity of the accident in which the driver was involved as per the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 3ZB. In both the situations Road Traffic Act 1988 s.2B, Road Traffic Act 1988 s.1 and Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3ZB is extensively applied7;8. Advice to Mr. Johnson From the brief analysis of the case, it was quite apparent that Mr. Johnson was little accountable for the entire scenario, although he cannot be deemed entirely exempted from the liabilities imposed in consequence of the road accident. Neither he was driving at a fast speed nor was he under the influence of any sort of drugs; however, his possession of an uninsured campervan involved in the accident and dearth of full license makes him proportionately liable for the compensation of losses beard by the injured party, i.e. death of D, in the aftermath of the accident. Correspondingly, it is also worth mentioning that a major proportion of liability is to be borne by the other party, D. It was owing to the fact that the driver at the opposite end, D was driving erratically being under the influence of alcohol, which resulted in his death. Under these circumstances, Mr. Johnson may be deemed chargeable under the section 87(1) and section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 19889 (refer to case example Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC Admin 450; [2002] RTR 107)10. Legal Procedure that Mr. Johnson might Deal with in the Case As Mr. Johnson was uninsured, there is little possibility of him getting any support from the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) under the section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. According to the Road Traffic Act Of 1988, any relatives of the death driver can claim for compensation from the insurance company. Subsequently, the insurance company would be forced to settle the claim for the death driver. However, this disbursed amount by the MIB for the claim will be legitimately acquired from Mr. Johnson, as he was driving an uninsured campervan, which exempted him from the eligibility list of MIB in gaining accidental compensation. Notably, the amount claimed as compensation will be charged as a fine on Mr. Johnson on being uninsured while driving11. To be noted in this regard, the charges may range from a statutory period of maximum 12 months and a minimum of 6 months, while fines may be charged on indictment upto 2 years12. Considering these facts, it is suggestible that Mr. Johnson should submit required documents and other required proofs to advocate his legitimacy as a driver and likewise, compensate the absence of a full license during the accident. According to the s.3ZB Road Traffic Act 1988 in UK, Mr. Johnson will be liable for certain penalties as he was driving uninsured and got involved in an accident that resulted in the death of the other driver. Correspondingly, the opponent or the plaintiff may try to prove that his liability also is legitimate under the Road Traffic Act 1988, as his campervan fall under the category of being motor vehicle, which is defined as “a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road”13. Taking reference from the cases DPP v Saddington Times 1.11.2000 and DPP v King [2008] EWHC 447 (Admin), it can also be argued that Mr. Johnson will be chargeable under the Road Traffic Act of 198814. In this regard, Mr. Johnson can also be charged for culpability, which refers that he was not allowed to drive in any public place being uninsured. Under such scenario, Mr. Johnson can be penalized despite of the fact that he has no fault in the accident. As was mentioned above, a fine can be predicted to be imposed as a common penalty that Mr. Johnson will have to face in this case. Additionally, owing to the severity of the situation, which involved the death of the other driver (D), Mr. Johnson’s penalty might increase upto imprisonment. The imprisonment for driving uninsured in this case can be between the ranges of 12 the 24 months as per Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 3ZB. Again, Mr. Johnson was also unlicensed while driving the vehicle. There are also several set of rules enacted in this regard which might trouble Mr. Johnson. According to the Road Traffic Act 1988 in UK, a person who is driving without a license will be considered illegal in the law and in such condition if he/she gets involves in any sort of accident than the actual facts related to standard of driving will not be taken into consideration during the trail. This, in simple terms, mean that Mr. Johnson, since being unlicensed will not get the benefit of being faultless in the accident from his end and will be forced to deal with the relevant charges enforced by the abovementioned legal statute. In this scenario, Mr. Johnson will be liable not only for monetary fines but he might also face imprisonment for at least 26 weeks and 36 weeks to the maximum15;16. Advice to Mr. Johnson to Approach in this Case It is apparent from the above discussion that Mr. Johnson will be charged for being a cause of the death of the other driver who was involved in the accident owing to fact that he was not in possession of a full license and also because he was driving a ‘motor vehicle’, which was uninsured at the time of accident. Correspondingly, it can be argued that Mr. Johnson must attempt to prove his legitimacy where the court may consider the liability in a proportion of 80:20 between D and Mr, Johnson. In this regard, he can stress on the facts that the police who were present on the spot, immediately after the incident, were believed that Mr. Johnson was driving in compliance with the standard driving norms and had no faults in the accident apart from his of an uninsured van and absence of a full license, which excludes him from being eligible to obtain insurance benefits of compensation coverage. Moreover, he was driving in accordance to the prescribed speed limit and was in full control of himself without being under the influence of any sort of intoxication. This proves that he was driving in compliance of with his duty of care as a driver, which in turn suggests that, no negligence of tort war performed by him17. This aspect proves his stand that he was not responsible for the occurrence of the accident, directly. Rather, he should stress on the fact that the other driver, D, who is dead, was liable for the accident at a greater proportion than Mr. Johnson. It is owing to the fact that D was under the influence of alcohol, and was driving erratically, which caused the accident and therefore, a greater proportion of liability must be charged on him (D). These factors can be proven in the court through evidences of police investigation and report of the forensic18;19. In support of these facts, Mr. Johnson can also use the case of Michael Hughes and James Dickinson as a strong reference. The scenario in that particular case is exactly similar to that of the case of Mr. Johnson. In the scenario of Michael Hughes and James Dickinson, Mr. Hughes was driving a Mercedes camper van along with his family in the region of A69 at Bardon Mill where suddenly his vehicle was hit from the other side by a Honda Civic driven by James Dickinson. As a result of the accident, Dickinson was killed on the spot and Hughes was charged for the same in-spite of the fact that his driving was in total control, adhering all the standard norms of driving. On the contrary, investigation of the police suggested that Dickinson was intoxicated and was driving beyond the prescribed speed limit. The Supreme Court entered the decision of the case in favour of Hughes and stated that the police failed to produce any strong evidence against him (apart from the aspect that the vehicle was uninsured and the driver i.e. Hughes was without a license) that could depict any fault of his in the accident20. Hence, owing to the similarity of the scenario between the two cases, Mr. Johnson is expected to walk free from the court, but will have to pay fines for his actual fault of bearing uninsured car and driving with inappropriate license. Conclusion From the overall analysis of the case and the discussion of the paper, a comprehensive understanding has been gained regarding the possible options that Mr. Johnson can use to reduce his liabilities in this case of accidental death in a road collision. In summary, it has been observed that despite of being little accountable with regard to the occurrence of the case, Mr. Johnson was charged for the death of the other driver involved. Notably, the Road Traffic Act of 1988 of UK suggested that this approach of the legal authorities was justifiable on the ground that Mr. Johnson was driving an uninsured vehicle along with an inappropriate license. However, there were certain approaches recommended to Mr. Johnson that might ensure favourable results for them in the case, proving a limited liability owned by Mr. Johnson as the other party (D) involved was under the influence of alcohol and was responsible for driving erratically, resulting in the road accident. In the absence of proper evidences, that could prove Mr. Johnson guilty and a cause for the death of the other driver, there is a high probability that Mr. Johnson might be able to walk free from the court with paying marginal fines for his actual faults. Additionally, Mr. Johnson will also have the support of the decisions of previous similar cases, which were made in favour of the accused. References Barrett David, ‘Supreme Court rules against 'death by unlicensed' motoring law’ [2013] (The Telegraph) accessed 28 October 2013. CPS, ‘Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving’ [2012] (Home) accessed 28 October 2013. CPS, ‘Causing Death by Driving Unlicensed, Disqualified or Uninsured Drivers’ [2013] (Home) accessed 28 October 2013. CPS, ‘Death by Dangerous Driving’ [2012] (Home) accessed 28 October 2013. CPS, ‘Road Traffic Offences’ [2010] (Using a Vehicle Without Insurance) accessed 28 October 2013. Department of Transport, ‘Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2011 Annual Report’ [2011]. (Home) accessed 28 October 2013. FindLaw UK, ‘Overview of Car and Vehicle Accident Liability’ [2012] (Home) accessed 28 October 2013. Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Road Traffic Act 1988’ [n.d.] (Section 3ZB) accessed 28 October 2013. Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Road Safety Act 2006’ [n.d.] (Section 21) accessed 28 October 2013. Oxford University Press, ‘Tort Law’ [n.d.]. (Home). accessed 28 October 2013. Supremecourt, ‘R v Hughes (Appellant)’ [2013] (JUDGMENT) accessed 28 October 2013. Whittingham Robert. The Blame Machine: Why Human Error Causes Accidents. (CRC Press, 2012). Read More