simply put. should she pay ? yes. but arent there laws being broken by the unlicensed person. why should a insurance company have to fork out possibly thousands of dollars on someone who shouldnt have been on the streets in the first place.i could possibly understand if they had a california license but to hit an someone with no license ? why should we be liable. im not purpously trying to come off as a prick or ******* and if we have to pay then so be it. i just wana educate myself with your help so next time i know what to do in this type of situation. thanks again for all the responses
Negligence is defined as the following: (1) Duty to exercise reasonable care, (2) Breach of duty, (3) Injury, and (4) Causation.
Here's how you apply the preceding to the facts you provided:
-Did your mother have a duty to exercise care when driving? Yes.
-Did your mother breach that duty by backing into another car? Yes.
-Was there an injury? Yes, apparently another person's car was damaged.
-Did your mother's breach of duty cause the injury? Yes, if your mother had not breached the duty, the injury would not have occurred.
Conclusion: Your mother was negligent.
If you apply the elements of negligence to the unlicensed driver, and they come out to all be "yes" as well, then contributory/comparative negligence could be a defense for your mother. However, I don't think the causation element of negligence will be met since the laws being broken by the unlicensed driver did not contribute to the accident (i.e. your mother would have hit the car behind her even if it was driven by a licensed driver).
Hope that helps you understand things.