Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: The Todal on 4 Jul 2008 11:47 "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message news:nrfs64l5dm3dqlsds0hmqp1vahaapo1pu0(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:53:14 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> > wrote: > >> >>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>news:2j0r64pds717fnd3p9vonvpou6tkdv6nm0(a)4ax.com... >>> 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 >>> 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: >>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/rundown >> >>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 > damaged clothing. > >>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. Does your medical report mention the lump and the clicking? If not, it ought to. I'd say the general damages for pain and suffering are worth around 4k. Ask your solicitors to press for a higher offer, because 5100 is on the low side. Obviously it would be futile to tell them that this is based on the opinion of a chap on uk.legal. Even if the anonymous chap happens to be an expert on personal injury law (in the sense that I have dealt with many hundreds of claims).
From: Simon on 4 Jul 2008 11:48 David Damerell wrote: > 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 > example. > >> So to get 80% of the money might be seen as a EXCELLENT offer? > > 20% is pretty derisory. Read the original article. I read that about four times and still saw it as him getting 80% of the dosh. Doh!
From: The Todal on 4 Jul 2008 12:00 "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message news:sggs64dld08q9l0ssaef27jhj5vnv29skv(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:20:03 +0100, "Novice" > <tobeornottobe(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >>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 Okay. > �2,500 for shoulder separation injury Too low, as the accident affected you for 4 weeks. Compare this one, which is more serious than your injury BUT was more than 10 years ago and you'd therefore apply an inflation multiplier of 1.34. I'd value it at 4k. Ullrich v Carlisle City Council Male, aged 35 at date of accident and 38 at the date of the trial, was a labourer required to straighten a damaged five metre high steel lamp. When he and another labourer manhandled the lamp standard, it fell striking U on the right shoulder. U had four to five weeks off work, having sustained damage to the capsule of the acromioclavicular joint. Bruising to this joint was severe extending to the underlying deltoid muscle and rotator cuff. At the date of the trial, there were some residual symptoms attributable to the accident and it was accepted that these symptoms would continue at the then present level indefinitely. Nonetheless, U had full range of movement in his shoulder with no restriction in movement or power. The judge found there was little insecurity of employment. He considered U's counsel's submission that there would be a disadvantage on the open labour market if U lost his employment and had to admit the previous industrial injury to a potential employer. However the judge found the risk to be negligible and made no Smith v Manchester award. General Damages: GBP 5,000. Past loss of earnings: GBP 589. Out of pocket expenses: GBP 96. Award for spoilt holiday: GBP 200. Total award (inclusive of interest): GBP 6,060. Court: (CC (Carlisle)) County Court (Carlisle) Judge: Judge Brown Judgment date: July 26, 1996 > �1,000 for permanent lump on shoulder Fair enough. No award for the bump on the head, then? How about another 500 for that? > > 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. As you have probably been told, if they make a part 36 offer and you fail to beat it, you could have to pay some of the costs out of your damages.
From: Tom Crispin on 4 Jul 2008 12:13 On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:47:19 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> wrote: > >"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >news:nrfs64l5dm3dqlsds0hmqp1vahaapo1pu0(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:53:14 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>>news:2j0r64pds717fnd3p9vonvpou6tkdv6nm0(a)4ax.com... >>>> 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 >>>> 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: >>>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/rundown >>> >>>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 >> damaged clothing. >> >>>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. > >Does your medical report mention the lump and the clicking? If not, it ought >to. > >I'd say the general damages for pain and suffering are worth around 4k. Ask >your solicitors to press for a higher offer, because 5100 is on the low >side. > >Obviously it would be futile to tell them that this is based on the opinion >of a chap on uk.legal. Even if the anonymous chap happens to be an expert >on personal injury law (in the sense that I have dealt with many hundreds of >claims). I have checked my figures again. �3,750 is for pain and suffering. �1,147 is for repairs to my bicycle �203 is for damaged clothing, panniers and a broken rear light I dropped a 50p claim for a damaged keyring as a gesture of goodwill.
From: Tom Crispin on 4 Jul 2008 12:32
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:00:12 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net> wrote: > >"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >news:sggs64dld08q9l0ssaef27jhj5vnv29skv(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:20:03 +0100, "Novice" >> <tobeornottobe(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>>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 > >Okay. > >> �2,500 for shoulder separation injury > >Too low, as the accident affected you for 4 weeks. Compare this one, which >is more serious than your injury BUT was more than 10 years ago and you'd >therefore apply an inflation multiplier of 1.34. I'd value it at 4k. > >Ullrich v Carlisle City Council >Male, aged 35 at date of accident and 38 at the date of the trial, was a >labourer required to straighten a damaged five metre high steel lamp. When >he and another labourer manhandled the lamp standard, it fell striking U on >the right shoulder. U had four to five weeks off work, having sustained >damage to the capsule of the acromioclavicular joint. Bruising to this joint >was severe extending to the underlying deltoid muscle and rotator cuff. At >the date of the trial, there were some residual symptoms attributable to the >accident and it was accepted that these symptoms would continue at the then >present level indefinitely. Nonetheless, U had full range of movement in his >shoulder with no restriction in movement or power. The judge found there was >little insecurity of employment. He considered U's counsel's submission that >there would be a disadvantage on the open labour market if U lost his >employment and had to admit the previous industrial injury to a potential >employer. However the judge found the risk to be negligible and made no >Smith v Manchester award. General Damages: GBP 5,000. Past loss of earnings: >GBP 589. Out of pocket expenses: GBP 96. Award for spoilt holiday: GBP 200. >Total award (inclusive of interest): GBP 6,060. >Court: (CC (Carlisle)) County Court (Carlisle) >Judge: Judge Brown >Judgment date: July 26, 1996 The Barrister quoted Johnson V WM Armstrong Ltd [2001] Kemp and Kemp G2-041; �2,500 and Genc v Eidarus [2005] Kemp and Kemp G2-041.2; �2,200 Later the barrister produced a case history virtually identical to mine, right down to the clicking sensation when swimming, where an award of �3,500 was made. I cannot find the letter. >> �1,000 for permanent lump on shoulder > >Fair enough. No award for the bump on the head, then? How about another 500 >for that? The barrister says that it is unlikely that a court would make a separate award for the bump on the head. >> 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. > >As you have probably been told, if they make a part 36 offer and you fail to >beat it, you could have to pay some of the costs out of your damages. > |