Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Tom Crispin on 3 Jul 2008 14:28 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 solicitors. 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. - Mr Crispin's evidence is supported by the witness evidence of [NC]. Although Mrs [C] knows Mr Crispin [she is the mother of a pupil in my class] the court would likely find her an independent witness and would likely accept her evidence. - Mr Crispin's account of the accident is clear and persuasive, he would likely make an excellent witness in court. - It is clear from Davis V Schrogin, as well as rule 67 of the highway code, that cyclists are permitted to overtake queuing traffic. - Rule 204 of the HC emphisises that care should be taken in relation to vulnerable road users. - Mr Crispin was not, in my view, cycling in a way to justify a finding of contributary negligence. In particular he was not cycling excessively quickly nor did he ignore a signal from the Defendent. The court would also likely observe that the accident did not occur at a junction. - Mr Crispin's witness statement must contain all the information contained within his replies to the Defence. It is rare that a party provides such an [sic] well-reasoned response to another party's case and although there is technically irrelevant material within the responses [lol] this is clearly Mr Crispin's own well-researched response.
From: bornfree on 3 Jul 2008 14:44 On 3 Jul, 19:28, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> 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 > solicitors. > > 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. > > - Mr Crispin's evidence is supported by the witness evidence of [NC]. > Although Mrs [C] knows Mr Crispin [she is the mother of a pupil in my > class] the court would likely find her an independent witness and > would likely accept her evidence. > > - Mr Crispin's account of the accident is clear and persuasive, he > would likely make an excellent witness in court. > > - It is clear from Davis V Schrogin, as well as rule 67 of the highway > code, that cyclists are permitted to overtake queuing traffic. > > - Rule 204 of the HC emphisises that care should be taken in relation > to vulnerable road users. > > - Mr Crispin was not, in my view, cycling in a way to justify a > finding of contributary negligence. In particular he was not cycling > excessively quickly nor did he ignore a signal from the Defendent. The > court would also likely observe that the accident did not occur at a > junction. > > - Mr Crispin's witness statement must contain all the information > contained within his replies to the Defence. It is rare that a party > provides such an [sic] well-reasoned response to another party's case > and although there is technically irrelevant material within the > responses [lol] this is clearly Mr Crispin's own well-researched > response. Given what you have just said, I would suggest getting 100% is very feasible, especially if you passionately beleive in your right to that 100%.
From: Dogpoop on 3 Jul 2008 14:45 Tom Crispin typed: > 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%? Dunno, it's your choice, but I'd guess that your counter offer might recieve a counte counter offer, ad infinitum ..... IMHO life's too short to feck about too much, take what you feel is 'right' or what you feel you can live with and move on. -- Dogpoop http://www.glass-uk.org/ "You would probably do better not to bother with renewable energy" Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.
From: vernon on 3 Jul 2008 15:19 "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message news:j44q641dmj09d1q9fg4cmk4197vfi2dpmd(a)4ax.com... > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? > IANAL but my considered opinion is that it's your call.
From: Rob Morley on 3 Jul 2008 15:54
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:28:49 +0100 Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > > Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? > I'd be inclined to ask for more money and zero liability - let them know that you think the existing offer is a joke and you're happy to let the court decide. Maybe I've been lucky that the claims I've made in that past have resulted in reasonable offers, and I've not had to haggle - I know my solicitor (actually a legal executive at a large local firm) worked hard preparing them for me. |