From: Simon on 4 Jul 2008 10:23
Tom Crispin wrote:
> Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my
> bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on
> the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow
> moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out
> into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic.
> The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I
> had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road
> to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me
> from behind.
> I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to
> the head.
> I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability -
> meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame
> for the accident. I have rejected that offer.
> 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.
> Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%?
> The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free
> settlement is worth �255.
> It is worth considerably more than that to my no win - no fee
> The no win - no fee barrister says the following (highlights only):
> - On the basis of the written evidence in my opinion Mr Crispin has a
> very good (70%) claim that the accident was entirely caused by the
> negligence of the Defendent.
Am I the only one to note that if his own Barrister thinks that there is
a 70% chance of it being the van's fault, the same barrister must think
there is a 30% chance that the cyclist was at fault!
And if you take this statement to its logical conclusion, blame could be
So to get 80% of the money might be seen as a EXCELLENT offer?
From: The Todal on 4 Jul 2008 11:06
"Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker(a)compuserve.com> wrote in message
> 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.
It is inconceivable that "the other side" could be reading this.
At any given time there are hundreds of thousands of claims in progress,
dealt by thousands of different claims handlers in many different insurance
offices, loss adjusters and solicitors firms. A high proportion of claims
involve road traffic accidents, most of which have very similar facts. Let's
not get paranoid about who might be reading.
From: Tom Crispin on 4 Jul 2008 11:26
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:53:14 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:21:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
>> <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> 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
>> 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?
The repairs to the bicycle came to about �1,500. There was also
>A valuation of 5k implies that you are fully recovered now, with no
>continuing discomfort or limitation of movement. Is that the case?
I have a permanent lump on my shoulder, and when swimming breaststroke
I feel a mild clicking sensation in my shoulder but no discomfort.
Apart from that I seem to have full movement in my arm and no pain.
From: David Damerell on 4 Jul 2008 11:29
Quoting Simon <simon345(a)hotmail.com>:
>Am I the only one to note that if his own Barrister thinks that there is
>a 70% chance of it being the van's fault, the same barrister must think
>there is a 30% chance that the cyclist was at fault!
Er, no. If there is a 70% chance that it is (will be found to be) _entirely_
the van's fault, there is a 30% chance that it is (will be found to be)
not entirely the van's fault. It might still be 90% the van's fault, for
>So to get 80% of the money might be seen as a EXCELLENT offer?
20% is pretty derisory. Read the original article.
David Damerell <damerell(a)chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Monday, Presuary.
From: Tom Crispin on 4 Jul 2008 11:43
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:20:03 +0100, "Novice"
>Who says its only worth �5K and why?
>General damages for your injury?
>Unless you have fully recovered (in which case possibly no more than �2,500
>for the injury) it will be too early to say.
>Be wary of an optimistic prognosis which suggests that you will recover
>shortly eg within 2 years.(Then getting it up to �5K) but far more if the
>prognosis is wrong.
>Past loss of earnings + interest?
>Future loss of earnings eg when undergoing surgical decompression?
>Handicap on the Open Labour Market?
I think the figure is something like this:
�1,500 for damage to bike and clothing
�2,500 for shoulder separation injury
�1,000 for permanent lump on shoulder
I was pretty much back to normal within four weeks, though during a
mountaineering holiday in Glencoe, Scotland 26 May to 2 June 2007, I
didn't do as much walking and was not as adventurous as I would
normally have been.
The settlement is agreed, and I am satisfied with the �5,100 figure.
The only point to settle is the percentage. I think that 100% is
correct but will be happy with 95% for a trouble free payment.
Anything less than 95% and court it is and the defendant's employer's
insurer's can pay the legal costs.