I damaged DND vehicle, need advice

[George Wallace]

I'm just saying if I owned this 2012 truck I wouldn't casually drive around with no insurance thinking 'Oh if I crash I'll just pay for everything from my own pocket no big deal'
Its just my opinion but an employer should be responsible for its own assets and employees. If I injure myself at work even if its negligent every things paid for period.
Like I said before, I know a handful of people who have wrote off military vehicles that are exponentially more expensive through misuse and unsafe practice and didn't pay anything.
I'm not looking for responses defending the crown, rather advice to avoid charges I can't afford and places to research this topic

As I said:

You need to do some (a lot of) reading and research.  Then you will understand.

You obviously have no idea of what your are talking about when it comes to insuring government and CF vehicles.


Listen to what is being said here and then have the patience to wait to find out what the outcome of the Accident Investigation actually is.  Don't get yourself all tied up with what someone may have said about you paying.  You may be found negligent and have to pay; you may not.  You may lose your 404's; you may not.  You may have to take remedial driver training; you may not.  At the sounds of it, no investigation has yet reached a definitive conclusion, so be patient and wait for the verdict to be arrived at.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You do realise there's other disciplinary measures available? If the member was being negligent, toss the book at them, there's been far too many accidents and even deaths caused by extremely stupid things done with DND vehicles.

If you suddenly fine a member the amount of, or close to, their annual income, that member suddenly becomes very useless. Even if it's self-imposed, or if they "deserved" it, they're still in severe financial hardship. They've suddenly become a huge security risk.

The only effective way to correct that security risk is to either release them immediately after being fined, or lock them up until they've got a positive cash flow again... you want that for every dented bumper?

In the mean time, the OP needs to:

1. Talk to his chain of command about what's happening administratively
2. Read (reference posted by MarioMike for ease of spoon-feeding)
3. Wait for the investigation to complete

Bonus:

If you want wisdom, here's some. "Consider the source". Who's saying you have to pay?

Sig Op, 

I realize getting an 18 year old kid who's reserves pay is his only source of income to pay for a written off vehicle is a brutal thing to do.  Someone's not going to be able to drop $15'000 (for example) just like that.

On the same note I think there needs to be more punishment then a couple hundred dollar fine.  I've seen a lot of young soldiers act like total assholes with vehicles, trash them and much like the OP comes across ( to me at least) shrug their shoulders and say big deal DND should have insurance for that. Lots of soldiers treat vehicles like shit and it's a huge joke to them. There needs to be more accountability than $125 out of someones pocket (if it's found that they are negligent or whatever).

I agree about reserves leadership making all kinds of grandiose threats while having absolutely no schmick what they are talking about. We had a transport officer who routinely threatened privates with up to quarter million dollar fines for all those weirdo transport rules.

And yet, having a troop thinking he might have to pay a really large fine for acting like an idiot isn't always a bad thing.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for soldiers who put themselves in financial hardships due to belligerent and downright dangerous behavior.

 

[chrisf]

On the same note I think there needs to be more punishment then a couple hundred dollar fine.  I've seen a lot of young soldiers act like total assholes with vehicles, trash them and much like the OP comes across ( to me at least) shrug their shoulders and say big deal DND should have insurance for that. Lots of soldiers treat vehicles like crap and it's a huge joke to them. There needs to be more accountability than $125 out of someones pocket (if it's found that they are negligent or whatever).

I completely agree, I've personally witnessed plenty of examples(though I won't list any of them in a public forum).

Honestly, I don't actually give a crap about the original posters problem, and [in my experience] most serious damage to DND civillian pattern vehicles is caused by driver negligence.

I just can't stand hearing people make insane threats they have no authority to follow up on.

 

[MedCorps]

Mariomike was right on the button.  Read QR&O chapter 38.  Chances are you will only be on the hook for $250 big ones reguardless of what Base MSE or Unit Tn tells you.

Unless... this goes to the JAG via the CDS then you very well might be paying 15K.  In the recoveries I have seen the large one (fuel incident above) went to the JAG. 

The smaller ones ($100 to $250, although the damage was indeed more in all cases) were handled at the unit (or seemed to be) and were uncontested by the offending member. In one of those cases I know the "uncontested status" was at the advice of the CSM and I suspect in lieu of a charge (although that would never officially happen right?).

If you read the QR&O contesting the administrative deduction can quickly push this matter to the CDS as the amounts of contention are set so low that it needs to be refereed to him if you object to the deduction.  Contesting the deduction might also encourage the RSM to recommend a NDA 124.

So if I were you I would:

1) Read QR&O 38 and get a good understanding of it.
2) Seek out your Pl Comd via the CoC and discuss the matter with him, highlighted QR&O 38 in hand.
3) Set aside $250 bones from your next pay - the max deduction for a vehicle incident see: 38.03 (4)(b)(v)
4) Pony up the cash via administrative deduction for the damages you have negligently done.
5) Thank Mariomike
6) Send a $100 donation to army.ca for doing your staff work for you and allowing you to sleep this weekend.

MC

 

[Haggis]

Sumyungai:

The CF and the government self-insures it's vehicles (not it's drivers) through the Crown Liability Act.  When you buy car insurance, you are insuring the vehicle, not you.  Your rate to insure the vehicle is determined by a number of factors, one beingh your driving record.  That tells the insurer what kind of risk the covered vehicle may be subjected to because of your driving record.

If some drunk hits a CF vehicle, the Crown will recover the damages from him.  In such a case it would be doubtful that his insurance company would support him because he was committing a criminal offence at the time of the collision (note that I did not use the word "accident").

So, if you are found at fault, the Crown can recover the damages from you. And since you are not insured, you will pay.

That's how it works.

Now, go do your homework and talk to your chain of command.

 

[AmmoTech90]

So under the QR&O you pay $250 which is less than a lot of deductibles carried privately, and your insurance probably wont go up for having a claim unless you get a traffic ticket along with the collision.

Got off pretty lightly I think.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sig Op, 

I realize getting an 18 year old kid who's reserves pay is his only source of income to pay for a written off vehicle is a brutal thing to do.  Someone's not going to be able to drop $15'000 (for example) just like that.

On the same note I think there needs to be more punishment then a couple hundred dollar fine.  I've seen a lot of young soldiers act like total assholes with vehicles, trash them and much like the OP comes across ( to me at least) shrug their shoulders and say big deal DND should have insurance for that. Lots of soldiers treat vehicles like shit and it's a huge joke to them. There needs to be more accountability than $125 out of someones pocket (if it's found that they are negligent or whatever).

I agree about reserves leadership making all kinds of grandiose threats while having absolutely no schmick what they are talking about. We had a transport officer who routinely threatened privates with up to quarter million dollar fines for all those weirdo transport rules.

And yet, having a troop thinking he might have to pay a really large fine for acting like an idiot isn't always a bad thing.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for soldiers who put themselves in financial hardships due to belligerent and downright dangerous behavior.

I think everyone should just wait, like George Wallace says, until the investigation is complete.

Quit the pre-judging and getting ready to toss someone to the wolves if you don't know WTF you're talking about.

The OP has good solid advice to follow, notwithstanding the rest of the tangents some wish to pursue.

Leave it be.

All that's left is for the OP to act on it and let us know how he made out.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We're expanding on the topic no one is throwing him to the wolves. He still has a "DND should have insurence who cares" attitude.

Edit to add, I can see how my quoted post makes it look like I'm referring to the OP, I'm not. I mean in general I've found in my considerable experience dealing with this that a days pay isn't much of a deterant.

 

[captloadie]

And by the way, TN is not telling anyone they have to pay for damages, or at least shouldn't be.  What they do is send the bill to the unit who requested the detail, and provided the Fin code. If a CO then decides to go farther, than good on him. And normally it is only when the vehicle is a rental, and we owe the rental company cash do bases make big issues out of it

 

[Red Devil]

Just a thought.....but if drivers are charged the whole cost of repairs for genuine accidents (and I think the idiots should pay for wanton destruction due to pure negligence, by the way) who would ever volunteer to drive a vehicle. If the CF doesn't take a considered view and 'effectively' cover drivers for accidents, marching might become our only form of transportation. Hopefully common sense will prevail in this and other cases...I suspect it will.

So, whilst the DND does not have insurance, shouldn't the DND act as if it did (by covering accidental costs) unless a case of obvious negligence is proven. Personally, if an employer, other than DND, asked me to drive a vehicle and accept the risk without insurance coverage I would respectfully decline to drive.

:2c:

 

[Lerch]

Somewhat related to the subject;

A couple years back I was tasked by a WO in my battery to go and pick up a member from Winnipeg airport. This was in January, and my usual route is straight down Highway #1. As I set off, the highway was clear with the exception of a few small snow drifts, and I only passed a few vehicles including snow plows.

When I got to Portage, the highway east had been closed and traffic was backed up. I called my friend back home to check road conditions for an alternate route (weathernetwork.ca has road condition map showing open and closed routes). He found me an open path to Highway #2, which was still open.

Anyway, long story short, while I was using the alternate route into Winnipeg, and while going safely under the speed limit, I hit a deep snow drift. Up until this one they were at most a foot deep, nothing more than a bump. I suspect the drift was two or more feet, but from a distance it's hard to judge until you're in it. When I got to Winnipeg and got a chance to step out, I saw the bottom skirt of the bumper had been knocked off and the passenger side was cracked.

When I got back to Shilo and parked the van, I filled out the accident report and passed it onto Regt Transport when I saw them, explained what happened and they had no problem. The next day, word had trickled back to the WO who had tasked me, that I broke a van. After giving him the same explanation he saw fit to try to bring his wrath down upon me because I hadn't used the authorized route and deviating was apparently a big no-no. Obviously I mentioned that nobody, the WO included, had told me that there was an authorized route. After some more words I never heard anything of it the WO.

Now, has anyone who's done a general driver task, been given an authorized route to carry out the task?

 

[dangerboy]

I have driven that route several times and in similarly conditions, the only times I can recall being told authorized routes is when I was part of a convoy and it was in the road move orders. Other than that I was just given contact numbers and told "don't speed".

That being said I am not an MSE Op nor have I ever been part of Battalion Transport so I don't know all the rules and regulations.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Just a thought.....but if drivers are charged the whole cost of repairs for genuine accidents (and I think the idiots should pay for wanton destruction due to pure negligence, by the way) who would ever volunteer to drive a vehicle.

Well to circumvent that someone could just be TOLD to drive a vehicle if they are qualified for it, it's the military after all ;D

Good point about genuine accidents though.  Negligence could probably cover a lot of situations. If an young and inexperienced driver drives the panel van into a gate because they thought they had enough room and didn't get out of the vehicle to check that could be considered "negligent" perhaps?
Take that and compare it to the same van coming back with a dented bumper and mud, weeds and grass stuck all over the undercarriage from off roading and the driverand passengers saying they didn't know how it got there, with a big grin.



Lerch, same thing happened to me kind of. Had a Captain tell me I wasn't allowed taking a certain road in a city with the MSVS because it wasn't a MSR and if the MPs found out (despite being 100kms away) I would be charged and have my 404s taken away.  Of course the next day he takes the same road, I asked him about it not being an MSR and he said it's okay because he just needed to stop by the bank  :

 

[Franko]

Well, the last position I was in I was made privy to the outcome of the investigations held WRT accidents and the outcomes, including crew commanders.

Most at fault drivers were ordered to take DDC/SBC again and did not incur any financial garnishment off their pay.

That being said, we had one who had two accidents in three years of significance and his 404s have been pulled for the foreseeable future, which is resulting in an AR.

We had one that completely wrote off a piece of equipment due to a rollover while speeding in a clearly marked speed zone while on a bridge. He even lied about it. Again, 404s pulled, DDC/SBC and an AR completed. I'm unaware of the outcome of it.

Regards

 

[my72jeep]

Some years back I was found Negligent for damage to a DND rental, and was ordered to pay the $153.50 cost of the top of the dash Passenger side.
It was decided as the driver of the truck for a 2 month detail I should have noticed that the bottle of military issue bug dope had stopped slidding around on turn's, and affixed its self to the dash.

 

[armyvern]

I have seen one of my troops held accountable and successfully sued.

Circumstances:  On TD with a CFR plated vehicle; got into accident at intersection.

CFR vehicle written off as well as a civilian vehicle (+injury to a civilian).

Many witness statements etc as to the military member failing to stop at the stop sign. He was found at fault. He was required to reimburse the Crown for CFRd vehicle. The insurance company of the Civilian Vehicle involved went after the military driver's civilian insurance company for costs; his personal insurance refused to cover as accident occurred in a work vehicle while on duty.  All we could do was send member to see the AJAG for some advice, "get a lawyer". He did, he lost and he paid for the civilian vehicle damages/injury too.

Whether or not one is held "at fault" and is required to pay is totally dependent upon the unique and individual circumstances in each individual situation. There is no "blanket" answer.

Edit to add:  Being found "at fault" does not, necessarily, equate into also being "negligent".  We've had a +300K rollover here where the investigation showed cause as driver inexperience and unfamiliarity with route, but he was not found "negligent". Being found "negligent" or "not negligent" is key to how the outcome may/may not play out in the end. In the case of the "sued" scenario, the mil driver breaking the law by running stop sign (ergo was "negligent") and thus causing the accident played a huge part in the outcome.

 

[Blackadder1916]

There has already been some valid advice from knowledgeable members, but I'll supplement those with this.  While not legal advice, the Military Administrative Law Manual, Chapter 8 - Liability for Public and Non-Public Property provides a good explanation of the measures that can be taken against members of the CF to recover the cost of loss or damage to public and non-public property.  It expands on the QR&O/CFAO that deal with the issue.  There is much more than the snippet I quote below, but that portion illustrates the necessity of making an informed decision before objecting to an administrative deduction.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/mal-dam/miladminlaw-droitadminmil/chap8-eng.asp

Limitations on the Power to Impose Administrative Deductions

. . . . . .

34. Where a CO, a formation commander, or an officer commanding a command is precluded from ordering an administrative deduction, that officer is to report the matter to the next higher authority and shall forward all available evidence (i.e., proceedings of BOI, minutes of SI, etc.), and any statement made by the member in support of their objection, to the next higher authority.49

35. If the CDS is precluded from ordering an administrative deduction because of the member’s objection, the matter is to be referred to the Judge Advocate General (JAG).50 The JAG will then refer the matter to the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL) at the Office of the DND/CF Legal Adviser (DND/CF LA). Should it be decided that civil action is to be taken to recover the loss, the amount proposed for the administrative deduction does not prejudice the right of the Crown or the NPP organization to recover the full amount of the loss.51

36. This raises doubts as to the purpose and viability of administrative deductions. If the CDS can order an administrative deduction of only $250 over the objection of the member (see Table 2 above), why would a member ever consent to an administrative deduction of more than $250? The answer is simple. If the member consents to the administrative deduction, its recovery constitutes a complete repayment of the debt,52 and the CF is barred from taking civil action against the member for any difference.

37. For example, a member recklessly destroys NPP valued at $5,000. As the loss of NPP was over $500 and was due to recklessness (i.e., negligence not of a minor character), QR&O 38.03(4)(b)(v) applies and the administrative deduction cannot exceed $1,000 (i.e., one-fifth of the amount – see Table 1). The CO decides to recover the maximum amount possible but QR&O 38.03(2)(a)(i) prevents a CO from ordering an administrative deduction of over $200 (even with consent – see Table 2). The CO, therefore, reports the matter to their brigade commander. The brigade commander proposes to order an administrative deduction of $1,000, but the member objects. The same thing happens at the command and CDS levels. The matter is eventually referred to DCCL and the decision is made to sue the member for the full amount of the loss. If the CF is successful in its action, the member is liable for $5,000. Whereas, had the member accepted the administrative deduction, the member would have been liable for only $1,000.

 

[fraserdw]

If you suddenly fine a member the amount of, or close to, their annual income, that member suddenly becomes very useless. Even if it's self-imposed, or if they "deserved" it, they're still in severe financial hardship. They've suddenly become a huge security risk.

There's a retirement plan for the totally useless, we do not use it enough, but if you damage it, you pay for it if it is your fault.  Civie company would make you pay and fire you for an at fault accident.  Which remains me, I got a 1/2 CFR to report from the Pictou AIrfield Engineers, Passed me doing 170KPH on my vacation.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's a retirement plan for the totally useless, we do not use it enough, but if you damage it, you pay for it if it is your fault.  Civie company would make you pay and fire you for an at fault accident.  Which remains me, I got a 1/2 CFR to report from the Pictou AIrfield Engineers, Passed me doing 170KPH on my vacation.

Did you have a radar gun on him? What proof do you have of them doing 170KPH?

 

[aesop081]

Did you have a radar gun on him? What proof do you have of them doing 170KPH?

He was probably going 165 and they passed him............ ;D