Women sue Insurance firm for rape in Taxi.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by ashford_old_school, Apr 24, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sex attack women sue taxi driver

    John Worboys drugged and sexually assaulted women in his licensed taxi
    Women who were sexually assaulted by cabbie John Worboys are suing him and his vehicle insurers, arguing he used his taxi to attack them.

    A High Court hearing will decide if the un-named insurer is liable to pay any damages awarded against Worboys to a group of eight women.

    It will consider how far car insurance covers harm caused by crimes using a vehicle - not just road accidents.

    Warboys was jailed in 2009 for sexually assaulting his passengers.

    The 54-year-old was given an indefinite prison sentence after Croydon Crown Court found him guilty of drugging and sexually assaulting women while working as a licensed driver.

    The landmark case by his victims, which is set to last several days, will rule on whether the motor insurance company - which has been granted anonymity - must pay damages because of crimes committed by Worboys in his insured cab.

    By law, motor insurance covers personal injury caused by use of a vehicle on a road, even when the vehicle is used as a weapon - for example to drive deliberately at someone.

    The eight women claim Worboys used his black cab to entice, imprison and assault them.

    'Seduced young women'

    Counsel for the group of claimants, Edwin Glasgow QC, told the court: "The fundamental issue in these cases is whether personal injuries caused by a taxi driver's assaults on a passenger, during the course of a journey, were 'caused by or arose out of the use of a vehicle on a road' for the purposes of compulsory insurance as required by the Road Traffic Act 1988."

    The key to this case, he said, was "the role that the taxi and the taxi driver played in the events which occurred".

    The taxi was not just "a place" where attacks took place, Mr Glasgow QC argued, but played an "essential" part in the attacks, and was a "symbol of security which seduced these young women to believe they were safe".

    It "provided the means" by which the attacks could take place, he insisted.

    The QC said that each of the eight claimants was a passenger in Worboys' taxi in 2007 or 2008, and that he was "clearly liable to the claimants for his intentional tortuous conduct".

    The court also heard that the liability to each woman was "in respect of the bodily injury caused to her by, and/or arising out of, the use of his vehicle on the road".

    The next defendant - the insurers - said they had "agreed to and did insure Mr Worboys, pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1988 in respect of his liability to the claimants for these matters".

    However, they contested the action being brought by the women.

    Remarking on whether the ruling could "open the floodgates" to many similar claims, Mr Glasgow QC said "the events described by these claimants are so rare" that their arguments would not "have broad policy implications".

    Rape is a most heinous crime and this post is not about that. However, suing the insurance firm? I take no solace in the statement that says it will not open the floodgates as we all know about morals and a certain section of the legal profession!!!
  2. UK hauliers must also be very concerned.
  3. Not a bad thing. It'll see Insurance companies demanding criminal records from 'professional' drivers. That should cut down a bit on travelling crime. If they're up to one thing, pound to a pinch of shit that they'll be up to something else as well. I hope they win their case.
  4. They can be as clever as they like but ultimately they're suing the insurance company because it has deeper pockets than the rapist.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Excellent, another reason to jack up the premiums.

    The UK has I believe, the highest incidence of whiplash claims in the EU, it makes no real difference to the insurance companies, they pay up, as it probably works out cheaper, and pass the costs on to the drivers who are legally bound to have insurance.
  6. I think that's all currently under the microscope.
  7. That's the usual idea. Nothing wrong with it.
  8. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse Biscuits. Add the usual mission creep and we will see everyone with a Hillmsn Imp paying higher insurance just via Fred West once had a ride in one!! ( I don't know if he did, but hopefully you get the drift!)
  9. I work part time as a ski instructor.
    The company pays for checks CRB working with children and special needs etc.
    All to do with insurance safe practise etc.
    Taxi firms should do same.
    It is not the insurance companies fault at all in my view.
    Case should be thrown out!
  10. She's also suing Marks and Spencer - it was their handkerchief that he used to administer the chloroform.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. If she doesn't manage to blame the insurance company, will she try again against the company that made the taxi?
  12. All well and good if the CRB system could cope. My daughter works as a volunteer with the RBL and it took her nearly 3 months to get the CRB check done.
  13. Took about a week for my last one?
    But done before and loads security checks in past,
    Took the Army 6 months as my mother was Irish!
  14. Hang on a sec, they are suing the insurance company? Surely it would make more sense to sue the people who licenced him to work as a taxi driver? They should be responsible for checking him out. But clearly these women are just chasing the largest payout. Bit short-sighted really as the insurance companies are more likely to contest the case and then appeal against it if they loose.
  15. So. If somebody gets raped in a hotel, would that make the hotel owner liable? It could go on ad ridiculum ( as suggested by the M&S hanky post)..