From: The Todal on

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)> wrote in message
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:21:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <nospamclayton(a)> wrote:
>>> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter
>>> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive
>>> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident.
>>Overtook a slowing van; silly of him, pretty silly of you.
> The van was stuck in traffic at red lights.
> It took the opportunity of no oncoming traffic (due to the lights) to
> pull out to the right 50m ahead of a loading bay on the right. He
> must have passed one or two stationary cars before turning into me
> from behind, his wing mirror clobbering me on the back of the head,
> and then proceeding to drive over my bike's front wheel.
> There is little doubt that the driver was 100% to blame for running me
> over.
> His only defence is that he was indicating at the time that I passed
> him and that I was driving [sic] too fast.
> He was not indicating at the time that I passed him, and my speed was
> about 12 mph.
> The simple facts are that he didn't look properly before turning right
> across two sets of zigzag lines at a pedestrian light crossing, and he
> did not indicate in any way that I could see, therefore I could not
> have reasonably predicted the manoeuvre he was about to undertake.
> For further details see:

I see no reason why you should agree any contributory negligence, but 5%
would be a negligible concession and would help to persuade them to agree
liability thereby getting it out of the way.

As to the value of your claim it sounds as if your lawyers reckon your
general damages are worth 5k and they are adding a nominal 100 pounds either
for interest or for travel and incidental expenses. Or was it for the cost
of repairs to the bike?

A valuation of 5k implies that you are fully recovered now, with no
continuing discomfort or limitation of movement. Is that the case?

From: bugbear on
Paul Boyd wrote:
> Entirely up to you, of course! From what you describe though, I can't
> see how you can be in any way to blame.

Sadly, there's a massive difference between "legal"
and "natural justice".

Courts (bizarrely) are often keener on agreements
than court cases, and (therefore) view someone
refusing a reasonable offer in quite poor light.

Courts are also (surprisingly) not interested
in principles.

So, stink though it might, I would take
the 95% and run.

As other people have pointed out, however,
is the 5100 amount (of which the percentage
is a part) right?

5% of e.g. 8000 is more money than 100% of 5100.

From: Andy Leighton on
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:57:56 +0100,
bugbear <bugbear(a)> wrote:
> So, stink though it might, I would take
> the 95% and run.

Yes but that isn't on the table yet.

Andy Leighton => andyl(a)
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
From: bugbear on
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:57:56 +0100,
> bugbear <bugbear(a)> wrote:
>> So, stink though it might, I would take
>> the 95% and run.
> Yes but that isn't on the table yet.

Damn. You're right. Apologies
for not reading carefully.

From: Jeremy Parker on

Don't forget that almost anybody could be reading this
newsgroup/these newsgroups, including the other side in Tom's case.

Hopefully, if they are reading this, all they've learned is that Tom
has a good case, but perhaps it's not a good idea to discuss tactics
too much.

Jeremy Parker

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan