h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If I was writing this up as a story the two collidees would end up getting married, but would I call it providence?

Wouldn't work, I'm gay.

Perhaps in the movies.

I like this thread, having brought some of my ethical dilemmas to Ask myself

It's pretty straightforward for me: all other things being equal, be honest with her to the degree you would want her to be honest with you.

I can tell you, as a woman who understands how often women get ripped off over things to do with cars, if I was in that woman's situation I would be insisting on a receipt (and possibly the job repair sheet if I got wind of something dodgy going on) before I paid anything.

What interests me in your story is your colleagues saying you are paying for injury to the car, not the cost of repair Seriously? How does your car feel about that? But jokes aside, what about the injury to her car?

having thought about it some more
I just think it would be better if you both got the best possible quote (which isn't always necessarily the cheapest ) and go halves as you agreed.

And I'd avoid your colleagues, they do sound like gutter dwelling slimeballs, but you're not quite there yet

>>What interests me in your story is your colleagues saying you are paying for injury to the car, not the cost of repair laugh Seriously? How does your car feel about that? winkeye<<

The argument was by an analogy.

If I walked over and broke you leg and you stamped on my foot, we might each expect compensation - not for the cost of the bandages, plaster (or the fraction of the wages of the ambulance driver, etc) , etc but a sum of money for the 'cost' of the injury.

That was why I chose to use 'injury' to describe the damage to the car I was lifting it out of the analogy. And the point of the argument was the 'compensatory cost' was dislocated from the 'actual cost' - it was an hypothetical figure, which might be more or less than the actual cost, and - returning to the real life problem - the actual cost the other person did not need to be informed of.

On the day in question no-body I asked about it agreed with me that payment was on production of a receipt for work done, all produced a variation of the above, use of the hypothetical estimate.

Hmmm it seems to me that that type of (ideological) talk will end up presenting debt as an asset to be sold on - and where would that lead the world...

OK Clive, so you won't marry her, but maybe you'll find that she's your long-lost sister?



Getting payment for the estimate rather than actual repairs makes sort of sense if, for some reason, you don't want to get it repaired just now. For example: the car is damaged, but not so much that you won't drive in it, until March when you will bring it to change your winter tyres for summer ones in a garage located far far away near your parents' home?

Speaking only for myself: before paying her anything, anything at all, I'd want to see the receipt for the work she'd had done. Not an estimate - a receipt for completed work.

I'd expect the same of her, and I'd WANT the same of her.

Consider: you go to garage 1 for an estimate. They say £400. Garage 2 says £200. You toddle off to Mrs. Baddriver clutching estimate 1, and sting her for the £200. She in turn does the same to you. But...

You then go to garage 2, they take off your damaged wing, and discover your axle's damaged and needs replacing. "Sorry, mate, it looked like £200, now it's going to be £1,500."

You can't, at this point, go back to the lady and say "Ooh, it's much more, can I have some more please, and oh yes, it's a different garage" without looking shifty.

Furthermore, if you swap cash on estimates, the same might happen to her. Get the work done, insist she gets the work done, and exchange cash based on the difference between the bills for the completed work. It's the only sensible way, and it protects both of you from each other.

This furthermore rules out the possibility that you end up paying for work done on her car that had nothing to do with the accident, and vice versa.

Why not just give each other £250 towards repair costs and have done with it?

mini

>>
If I walked over and broke you leg and you stamped on my foot, we might each expect compensation - not for the cost of the bandages, plaster (or the fraction of the wages of the ambulance driver, etc) , etc but a sum of money for the 'cost' of the injury.
<<

Yes, but that's not what you agreed with the woman. Also, it's not injury to the car, it's injury to you. I've been in that situation, where my car was written off by someone else driving it, and I was hurt. The state picked up the healthcare costs, and my insurance company recovered the valued cost of the car and the towing etc. But no-one compensated me for the enormous impact that had on my life (trying to buy a car when you don't own a car to go look and your body is damaged is a major issue). In hindsight I should have approached the owner of the car (her teenage son was driving) and asked them to consider helping in other ways - he could have driven me to look at new cars for instance, or they could have paid for taxis. But none of that is an entitlement either via insurance or the usual social contracts (which sucks actually, but doesn't appear to be something many people want to do something about). It would have been completely down to their goodwill and what we could negotiate, and that would depend on some kind of agreement between us on the 'value' of compensation.

My point being that the injured party doesn't get to arbitrarily decide what the compensation is.

"the number of people who've said I owe them no (moral) obligation to be honest"

You've always seems like a decent fellow to me, Clive. You owe it to yourself to be honest... and to deal with actual costs of repairs.

seemed a very decent fellow

I do consider myself decent, this all came about just as I reflected on the conversations I was having.

For instance today:

"If you have your car repaired, then tell her the higher price, if not tell her the lower price."


This from someone I in all other respects like and trust, I'd consider that dishonest, but the message I was getting was a sort of "all's fair in lvoe and war and insurance claims."

It's not an insurance claim though

An update:

so I *did* tell her about the other garage, she appreciated that.

There has been some miscommunication, they thought I was paying 50% of their costs but they were paying NONE of mine.

Specifically this arose becuase I'd said my car was so old I *might* not repair it, but I'd need to see the quotes and make a decision.

From this they got to me NOT repairing my car and them paying me nothing.

Additionally, despite agreeing not to, she had contacted her insurance company to inform them of the accident they have all my details now, not as part of a claim but under this notion of "additional information".

She pointed out that IF she claimed it would cost her £100 excess rather than the £400 something of fixing half her damage and half of mine which she wasn't prepared to afford anyway.

So I said I'd speak to my insurance (about to call them now) find out what my excess is is, if my no claims in protected etc. then we're on an even footing - but it seems like the equanimity of the last days is receeding in favour of taking it to insurance after all....


How's people's reading of the game theory aspect of this dilemma working out now?

Hi Clive

You monster you!

I would think that as this is not having anything to do with insurance companies, the 'never admit liability' arguments aren't valid. They are extremely valid in an insurance claim situation however (in discussions with your own insurance company admitting liability is fine, but if you say it to the other person, they can basically throw the book at you, it's considered tantamount to signing a blank cheque and handing it over).

Treat others as you would be treated yourself is the nub for me (and, I suspect, yourself). As you can contact one another, it could even be worth getting another quote or two (I'm assuming you still have the use of your car at least) and then give her a ring and discuss the situation with her, compare notes on decent Vs cheap garages etc and perhaps make a joint decision.

If you really wanted to ensure fairness, you could both present your best three quotes and let the other person pick which garage you go to and then you pay one another on production of an invoice.

As you're doing it between yourselves, I'd say the world is more or less your oyster. Just beware of even the best-intentioned person having an interfering friend/family member or partner who convinces them that some sort of con is worthwhile.

For me, I would say that if you profit from a joint and mutual agreement that was not intended to enrich either party's pocket, you're morally in the wrong.

I had an accident last year and the other person's claims have just grown and grown as time has gone on. Personally I was happy to accept 50/50 and a claim for my half as their car had quite a bit of damage (low speed impact, I was reversing, they were at a 90 degree angle across the road after pulling half of a U turn) to one wing and the wheel. A modern car, the wing etc is not built for side impact resistance. There wasn't even a mark on the back of mine.
The thing is, every time I get another letter from my insurer telling me what new thing they are dealing with and not contesting from the other party (I'm sure they've been in hospital in a coma with the claims they've been making), it gets me a little more annoyed and a little more bitter. They were as much in the wrong as I was and have gone off running with it. It saddens me.

I think that she didn't expect the cost to be so high. It could be that she found out how much hers would cost (say 300 quid) and then realised that if yours was around the same, she'd be paying more than her excess and maybe for some reason she can't afford that.

She may have asked her friends too, and one of them might have said "you can't trust anyone, never admit liability, go to your insurance company and make out it was all his fault" and she was persuaded by that...

To be honest, I was a little surprised at the way you both agreed to fix it in the first place and was interested to see how it worked out.

almost . That's what I get for writing an essay while watching masterchef...

It doesn't surprise me, Clive. Body repair costs are often higher than people expect.

*shrug*

Inform your ins. company that you agreed 50/50 liability at the time and see what they say, or tell them she backed in at speed and you were unable to stop in time as she shouldn't have been there. Road markings etc. might give one person priority over the other but you're in the murky realms of insurance. They'll make their own damn minds up now.