driving new-zealand negligence
Driver&#39;s liability for friend passenger&#39;s losses in an accident
<p>Alice and Bob are friends. One day they decide to go on a road trip in Bob's car.</p>

<p>It has started freezing and the road may be icy. Bob drives below the speed limit and applies some extra care that he thinks is adequate, but his experience in driving on icy roads is by no means broad/extensive. In particular, he does not know that bridges freeze first, and signs saying that are missing — they are just not common there.</p>

<p>The car enters a bridge, loses control and rolls over. Because the two wear seat belts, the car is rigid and they are very lucky they manage to escape the car — shaken but with only minor or no injures. However, Alice's jacket is damaged. Also she is concerned that she might have been injured, so she visits a doctor for checkup. The doctor finds nothing requiring medical care.</p>

<p>The police investigates the incident and issues <a href="http://www.police.govt.nz/news/commissioners-blog/traffic-warnings-trial" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Written Traffic Warning</a> to Bob, alleging him of <a href="https://www.drinkdrivelaw.co.nz/dangerous-driving/#Careless%20Driving%20Explained" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Careless Driving</a>. No charges are laid.</p>

<p><strong>Alice attempts to claim the costs of the doctor checkup and the jacket. Will she succeed?</strong></p>

<p>Jurisdiction: New Zealand, but also interested in any others.</p>

<p>Barring any specific statute the relevant law is the tort of negligence. To succeed Alice must prove Bob:</p>

<ol>
<li>had a duty to Alice,</li>
<li>breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person),</li>
<li>the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to Alice, and</li>
<li>Alice was, in fact, harmed or damaged.</li>
</ol>

<p>She will probably succeed on 1, 3 and 4 where she will struggle is with 2.</p>

<p>It seems that Bob did everything a reasonable person could do to avoid the accident. The only possible hope is that not knowing that bridges freeze first might be something a qualified NZ driver should know and that he breached his duty by not knowing if that is something the judge considers reasonable.</p>

<p>The traffic warning is irrelevant and untested (and untestable) hearsay and should be excluded from evidence.</p>

<p>My answer is premised on principles of equity because (1) I am not knowledgeable of vehicle legislation, and (2) the rationale herein is portable across jurisdictions where legislative provisions or case law might be inconclusive.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Alice attempts to claim the costs of the doctor checkup and the jacket. Will she succeed?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Unlikely. Bob should not be ordered to reimburse Alice.</p>

<p>At the outset, it is wrong for the police to impute to Bob careless driving. It is wrong because actually Bob took extra precautions in response to the challenging road conditions.</p>

<p>If the police alleged "<em>careless driving</em>" in Alice's presence, the police unduly prejudiced Bob. In that case, there is a chance that Alice would not have proceeded against Bob but for her awareness of the police's unfair depiction of Bob.</p>

<p>Bob's extra precautions disprove negligence. Given the absence of signs saying "<em>bridge freezes first</em>" and how unusual icy roads are in that region, an average driver from that region cannot be expected to know that bridges freeze first.</p>

<p>Since they suffered <em>only minor or no injuries</em>, Alice's motive for consulting a physician is questionable. Was that a result of the undue prejudice to Bob? did Alice have a preexisting medical condition? is she hypochondriac or suggestible? In such cases, Bob's driving can hardly be deemed a <em>proximate cause</em> of --or even contributory to-- Alice's needless medical expenses.</p>

<p>Alice's jacket is evidently expensive, or else she would have no incentive to require Bob to compensate her for the damaged jacket. Thus, a relevant question is <em>how</em> reasonable was it for Alice to wear a purportedly expensive (and perhaps ostentatious) jacket for what she knew was just a road trip in cold weather.</p>

<p>Neither Bob forced Alice to join the road trip, nor did he drive negligently. Therefore, he is not liable for what seemingly are Alice's self-inflicted losses.</p>
