I would surmise that if you are a famous celebrity, one reason you’d want a chauffeur (not least of being that nobody wants to drive themselves through LA traffic) is that you could be on the hook for huge monetary damages if you were to hit someone with your car. Does hiring a chauffeur legally put all the liability on him (or his company) instead of you?
In Florida at least as I understand it, car insurance follows the vehicle, not the driver. Only if my policy comes up short does the driver’s policy come into play.
~Max, not a lawyer
Same in California.
Cite, Fla. Stat. 321.151 paragraph (1)(a):
(1) A motor vehicle liability policy to be proof of financial responsibility under s. 324.031(1) shall be issued to owners or operators under the following provisions: (a) An owner’s liability insurance policy must designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby granted, must insure the owner named therein, and, except for a named driver excluded under s. 627.747, must insure any other person as operator using such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such owner against loss from the liability imposed by law for damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles within the United States or the Dominion of Canada, subject to limits, exclusive of interest and costs with respect to each such motor vehicle as is provided for under s. 324.021(7).
~Max
Is the driver personally employed by you or do they work for a service? If the latter, I would think it would fall on the company the driver worked for.
Many services also provide the car. So why would the customer/passenger be liable? I think rich people are aware of this, contract things out to limit your exposure. You may know and be friendly with your driver, chef or bodyguard but he doesnt have to work directly for you.
They wouldn’t. The owner of the vehicle is the one required to insure the operator against liability. If your chauffeur provides their own limousine, you are off the hook.
You can also go through a process to exclude coverage for any accidents while a specific chauffeur drives your car, with their consent and if they have sufficient coverage of their own. Fla. Stat. 627.747.
~Max
I don’t believe it would be that difficult for an injured party to successfully prevail in a suit against the employer of a chauffeur regardless of insurance coverage. Also, there could be catastrophic damages that exceed insurance coverage. The chauffeur is clearly an agent of the employer and if the accident occurred within the scope of employment, such as driving the employer where they want to go, liability is the responsibility of the employer or principal.
Consider a scenario where a cable repairperson enters a home to perform some agreed to work and while there, accidentally, breaks an expensive antique. Investigation reveals no negligence by the homeowner and the conclusion shows the repairperson simply was not paying attention and this resulted in the breakage. The “not paying attention” is negligence. Now, the repairperson has no assets to speak of so how can the homeowner recover for the loss? Simple; sue the principal or in this case, the cable company because their agent was negligent causing the damage and was acting within the designated scope of employment.
Does that apply to taxis as well?
The negligent acts of a taxi driver can be the responsibility of the taxi company but not the passenger. The driver is not an agent of the passenger because the driver is not an employee of the passenger.
So if I pay a taxi company a certain amount of money per month to provide me with a taxi on a full-time basis, is the driver still their agent?
Now it gets murky. I’d have to study the agreement between you and the taxi company and if it’s not in writing, good luck in court…
There was a court case in Ontario many many years ago (late 60’s or early 70’s?). A guy left his car with a local service station for repairs. The mechanic took it for a night out on the town and got into an accident. The lawsuit determined the owner was liable to the persons injured, since he had given custody of the vehicle to the garage. The insurance and owner would only be not liable if the car was stolen. That he did not know his car would be taken for a joyride is unfortunate, but not theft since he gave them custody of it.
IIRC the law was clarified after that to make sure that use by someone like a garage was implicitly limited to legitimate business, i.e. test ride to verify the fixes were good. Apparently it came out in the case that it was habitual for some garages at the time to use vehicles in the shop for personal use after hours.
I don’t recall any follow-on, but I assume the owner could go after the mechanic for the damages. Depends whether the mechanic would have assets or insurance that would cover that eventuality. Insurance requirements were pretty primitive back then.
So I agree, if the use of the car is contracted, the owner providing the car and then the driver would be liable. Passengers, not so (unless they actively did something silly like grab the wheel; or “I insist you go out now, even if visibility and road conditions are awful.”). I don’t see why it would matter for how long or how exclusively the car is contracted.
In the UK, it’s the car that is insured, so even if it is stolen and subsequently in a collision, the car’s insurer would have to pay out - not just for the damage to the car but for any other damages or injuries.
The insurance company would be able to pursue the thief for their costs, but they are likely to be without assets to seize.
Car insurance, especially for new drivers, is very expensive here, so it’s a big temptation for a young driver to drive without it. There are around 1 million uninsured cars despite heavy penalties and even seizures. Apart from fines etc, an uninsured driver could find themself personally liable.
As far as chauffeurs go, they would have to be a named driver on the insurance and being paid or not would make no difference.
Taxi companies oftlen claim their drivers are independent contractors in an attempt to avoid liaibility. I did a whole jury trial on that issue once after a driver who had only $100,000 in insurance killed a guy. We were able to establish agency and get to the company’s insurance, but it’s pretty fact specific.
As I understand, most(?) car insurance policies in Canada include an uninsured driver clause, where they will pay the policy holder for damages if the person who is responsible cannot pay, such as if the car that hit you did not have current insurance. But the owner is not liable if the car was taken without their permission (unless the person who took it lives in the same place).
Same here, but that doesn’t stop the insurance company from going after the perpetrator.
I may have misunderstood your original post. Did you mean
- I have a car with collision/comprehensive insurance. My car is stolen and my collision/comprehensive covers the damage to my car done when the thief crashes it.
Or
- I have a car with liability coverage. It is stolen and the thief hits another car injuring the driver and damaging both cars. My liability insurance covers the injury to the other driver and damages to the other car , even though the car was stolen and the thief did not have my permission to drive my car.
Because if you mean 2, I don’t think that is what
@md-2000 is talking about.
Both 1 and 2.
Also need to add - what I understand for my policy - the policy will cover my liability no matter who is driving my car; but the onus is on me to verify the driver I lend it to has a valid current driver’s license. If I knowingly let an unlicensed driver use my car, they are not going to pay. Not sure what the law says about third party payments in that case. (Does the insurance pay the driver I hit, then come after me and/or the unlicensed driver who had my car?) I’m not expecting I will have to find out - don’t need answer fast…
IANAL - I presume the law is based around - the owner is responsible for what happens with their car, and who drives it, and determining whether they are reliable. But of course, if the car is stolen, the owner has no control over what is done with it.
I presume with all insurance, the insurer can go after whoever is legally responsible for damages for reimbursement, provided it is not the person(s) holding the policy. (After all, that is essentially what insurance is for). If the damage is done in a way that violates the policy, the insurer will not pay - i.e. DUI, deliberate damage, fraud.
Considering the insurance company will even replace your car if it is stolen, I think #1 is a given.