Sympathetic but Law-abiding of Kempton Park writes:
Kempton Express’ lead story of August 1 (Guilty, but claim rejected) refers.
One can have sympathy for Purdey Smith, the driver (and presumably owner) of one of the vehicles involved in this accident.
Probably several readers have, over the years, themselves been the victim of what are generally known as “bumper bashings” or “rear-end shunts”.
As the matter is probably sub judice, I will not pass comment on the legal aspects of the situation and her claim. She must do as she sees fit, regarding the municipality.
Also read:
• Single mom sits with damage of R53 000 after accident with refuse removal truck
However, there are one or two aspects to the story which concern me. The first is the quote “I don’t have insurance, being a single mother”. To the best of my knowledge, motorists in South Africa are required to have insurance relating to their vehicle(s), whether that be fully comprehensive or more basic, and regardless of their marital/domestic status.
That being the case, I don’t see that “being a single mother” in itself gives Ms Smith exemption from having insurance. Otherwise, we could have every “single mother” in the country who has been or is due to be prosecuted for being uninsured claiming that status as “self-defence” and seeking to have such prosecution nullified, or conviction or fine overturned.
Having admitted to being uninsured, and such being duly recorded in the press, does one presume that the metro police will now prosecute her for having driven while uninsured?
Secondly, Ms Smith is quoted as saying: “I am driving a car which is no longer roadworthy.” Again, one has to wonder, if it is against the law to drive a vehicle which isn’t roadworthy, shouldn’t that car be taken off the road until such time as it is?
And if the vehicle continues to be driven while in an unroadworthy condition, does Ms Smith leave herself open to prosecution for that offence as well?
Admitting to being a mother, whether her child is, or children are young or adult, and presuming that at some time or another she has carried that child or those children in her vehicle, did Ms Smith not concern herself about the probable consequences to her offspring and family should the vehicle be in an accident, whether she was travelling alone or with passengers?
In this instance, she appears to be the innocent party in an accident. What if she were the guilty party and the innocent motorist(s)/passenger(s) were unable to claim from her insurance to cover their repairs, medical expenses, loss of income, because she didn’t have any? Being insured works two ways.
I too have a very limited income but would not dream of driving uninsured – it’s just not worth the risk, either to myself or to others. That is not being self-righteous, that’s being a decent, honest, upright, conscientious and law-abiding citizen of this country.
I am sure many readers will await with interest any further developments regarding Ms Smith’s claim against the municipality.
“
Also follow us on:
