it should be secondary to the primary from the bus company. imagine that if had borrowed you car and i was at fault for the accident. if there was not enough coverage, then they can go after the driver for the remaining balance. why do you think that some companies goto places for event, but must show insurance as well. for example, if my company decided to have a picnic at the zoo, who already has liabililty coverage while attending the zoo is requiring that we have additional coverage. but the catch is, how much is extra beyond the actual damamges? how much should they be held liable for?
So you’re suggesting that if the taxi you hired to bring your mother-in-law to the airport gets into a crash, you and your insurance should be liable for any injuries suffered by your mother-in-law.
The reason the zoo wants to ensure that you have liability coverage is in the event that you or your group does something for which they could be held liable. If you would set fire to the place your policy applies as primary. If you trip over a bad sidewalk, basically a maintenance issue, they would be liable.
The university should be left out of this. This is the whole reason they paid for the service instead of owning/maintaining their own bus and driver. The liability is transfered with the contract to hire them as the transportation company. If it was a plane crash would the airline be solely responsible or would you add in the college? Only the airline would be on the hook.
Why will it take the geniuses on the S.C. “months” to make a call? The university didn’t employ the driver, it didn’t train him, it didn’t help maintain the bus, it has place in this litigation and should be dismissed. You can’t impute negligence of an independent contractor onto a purchaser of services.
the university will end up having to pay, I would think, but as secondary. Just like if an individual hires a GC to build his house, and the GC is negligent and injures a third party, the injured 3rd party will sue the GC and the homeowner probably (for hiring the contractor). Vicarious liability
It appears the court is not deciding liability but rather is the insurer bound to defend the university under hired auto coverage. I suspect the court will direct the insuer(s) to defend the university under the hired auto coverage. I doubt there is litle if any negligence on the part the university however they could be held liable for. The bus company had passed all state and USDOT inspection and had a history of safe opeartions.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
it should be secondary to the primary from the bus company. imagine that if had borrowed you car and i was at fault for the accident. if there was not enough coverage, then they can go after the driver for the remaining balance. why do you think that some companies goto places for event, but must show insurance as well. for example, if my company decided to have a picnic at the zoo, who already has liabililty coverage while attending the zoo is requiring that we have additional coverage. but the catch is, how much is extra beyond the actual damamges? how much should they be held liable for?
So you’re suggesting that if the taxi you hired to bring your mother-in-law to the airport gets into a crash, you and your insurance should be liable for any injuries suffered by your mother-in-law.
The reason the zoo wants to ensure that you have liability coverage is in the event that you or your group does something for which they could be held liable. If you would set fire to the place your policy applies as primary. If you trip over a bad sidewalk, basically a maintenance issue, they would be liable.
The university should be left out of this. This is the whole reason they paid for the service instead of owning/maintaining their own bus and driver. The liability is transfered with the contract to hire them as the transportation company. If it was a plane crash would the airline be solely responsible or would you add in the college? Only the airline would be on the hook.
Why will it take the geniuses on the S.C. “months” to make a call? The university didn’t employ the driver, it didn’t train him, it didn’t help maintain the bus, it has place in this litigation and should be dismissed. You can’t impute negligence of an independent contractor onto a purchaser of services.
the university will end up having to pay, I would think, but as secondary. Just like if an individual hires a GC to build his house, and the GC is negligent and injures a third party, the injured 3rd party will sue the GC and the homeowner probably (for hiring the contractor). Vicarious liability
A well reasoned discussion with no mention of Bush or Obama being to blame.
It appears the court is not deciding liability but rather is the insurer bound to defend the university under hired auto coverage. I suspect the court will direct the insuer(s) to defend the university under the hired auto coverage. I doubt there is litle if any negligence on the part the university however they could be held liable for. The bus company had passed all state and USDOT inspection and had a history of safe opeartions.