The deficits of 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'?

QUOTE (Mustank @ Jun 14 2012, 09:53 AM)

Re: What if.....accident with drink driver
I think what Big Cherry did is very commendable.
We are given the wrong understanding that when a drunk driver hit us, we will not get compensated if we report the drink drving. now it is proven to be not true. i aint no lawyer so i dont understand the law part.
Question is do we need to engage lawyer to sue drunkard's isurance or our insurance company will do it for us?

Thanks for your kind words of commendation.
Me no lawyer either too, but have interest in seeing justice served.
Mahatma Gandhi says: "You must be the change you want to see in the world." (Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948))
Thus, those who just grumble that "the world is unfair" and do noting but only cover own b***side, perhaps the world would be a better place these grumblers could also consider solutions about how to make the whole situation better (rather than aggravating it further by perpetuating it and allowing others to suffer the same fate)- one cannot expect society to treat oneself better than the way one treats society.

"Question is do we need to engage lawyer to sue drunkard's isurance or our insurance company will do it for us?"
My humble opinion is that it depends.
My second reading of the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' reveals what I feel are some contradictions and flaws.

Firstly, the intent of the act states: "An Act to provide against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for the payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for matters incidental thereto.[5th February 1960]" is worded it seems to me to compensate the life and limb of 3rd party victims in a motor vehicle accident- at 'reasonable rates' where section 4 also adds that "'hospital' means an institution (not being an institution carried on for profit) which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients."; this definition preceded in 4(6) "The amount to be paid by the approved insurer or the owner under subsection (5) shall not exceed $400 for each person so treated as an in-patient or $40 for each person so treated as an out-patient." besides a whole shebang about the issue of the insured facing bankruptcy issues (section 10).

In short, the act is unnecessarily complicating, self contradictory with some figures getting outdated by inflation ("$40", "$400"- which hospital emergency department charges just $40 for walk-in treatment?).

My suggestion about the situation is for parliament to get its first principles right. Since "The whole idea is to make sure the victim is not left uncompensated. The insurer reserves the right to go after the driver to recover that amount." ('Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu' [TNP, 21Aug2010]) and protecting the common man, parliament in updating this act should probably remove the unnecessary mention of limits like $40 or $400 which mean nothing with inflation today. Liability limits should probably be for treatment claims to be limited to the equivalent of treatment costs as provided for by a public hospital/ institution and material damage to say not exceed $500K (amendable by parliament from time to time)- at the moment, it seems that the said act, despite being broadly termed, lacks mention about non-bodily injuries incurred although I believe this to be of significant deficit as the act seems also to have scant if no mention about compensation for future loss of income consequent to death/ disability.
Perhaps if the parliamentarians were worried about the issue of excessive claims arising from over onerous insurer liability, the perhaps a limit of S$1Million per casualty/ 3rd party individual/ company might be a reasonable limit. (the excess of which shall be claimable directly from the convicted perpetrator of the accident since in the in the absence of legal requirement to insure, the insurer might then disclaim any further liability).

In regards to your question whether you should engage a lawyer or seek redress through your own insurer (who would then liaise with the other insurer)- (I answer in the assumption that you are the 3rd party driver/ passenger in a car since a pedestrian I assume would probably choose the lawyer route). I guess it all depends upon the competence of your insurer, the type of damages (body injury/ property damage) and the factual evidence available at the scene; that said, speaking to your insurer would be good idea since I understand that there are some contractual terms which might restrain you from engaging your own lawyer.

Personally, I feel its better to report a drunk driver if simply for the good of moral purposes, since behaviour constitutes a very serious offense given the death and destruction it can potentially cause; the lack of mention about property damage not-withstanding. (I refuse to be the accessory to manslaughter by a drunk driver).

Even if there is no bodily injury, a civil claim against a driver convicted of drunk driving would be almost impossible to defend, and thus an easy open-shut case for any lawyer you should choose-- the converse of not calling TP (traffic police) would be no police report/ investigation and consequently even blatant denial of culpability by the other party (i.e. his story says that U caused the accident instead/ that U are accusing the wrong person)- a gamble totally not worth it.

Personally, I will almost always call TP unless the damage is totally minute, he compensate immediately (inclusive of a voluntary donation to charity tt I submit the next day), and seems conscious enough to decide all this- as any risk of him changing his story later is just not worth it.

One less drunk driver on the streets means safer roads for everybody.

PS: i understand that most insurers have the tacit understanding of common business interest to make both parties liable so that when it comes to premium renewal, both parties will then have to pay more (or have their NCB reduced).

Just my 2c, not an expert in either but feel that justice must prevail and the law should ensure and not impede that.

Rgds
B.C.

PS: The purpose of MPs is to review and improve laws towards the good of all citizens.
According to http://www.agc.gov.sg/aboutus/index.html , the mission of the AGC is "To enhance the rule of law and constitutional government in Singapore by providing sound legal advice and assistance in developing a fair and responsive legal system, furthering good public administration and protecting the interest of the state and of the people."- legislation shouldn't be too difficult to read, otherwise we all get constipated and confused over irrelevant nitty gritty; perhaps we could all either write to the AGC if we have queries about the law and where the answer doesn't suffice or wish to suggest improvements, speak to our own MP. Any MP who is unable to give us a satisfactory is UNFIT to represent us in parliament since it is the job of parliament to review and improve the laws of a country. The quality of a countries law thus reflects the quality of the countries MPs, which in turn reflects the choice of the citizens in electing these MPs... but then this issue is probably an issue for discussion on yet another day.


======
At:
MCF:
15June2012: What if.....accident with drink driver