DD had an accident today

gaz_jones

scubaangel wrote: »

I think the posts making that accusation are among those deleted, along with a handful of asbokids which were adding nothing useful to the discussion and read (to me at least) as attacks on the OP's character after a similar accident happened to themselves and the OP stated they thought it was entirely ak's fault.

Along with posts from someone practicing law atm which would have been relevant. Maybe went against what the OP was saying so got deleted? Until the mod that deleted them decides to come forward we wont know the full reason for deletion (cencorship?).


Liability for the accident will be decided by the insurance co's, and as for OP being accused of skirting issues - she wasnt in the car, she didnt witness the accident and can only go off the word of her DD and DD's bf who may not have been present when these things were asked!

Which is exactly what we've been trying to tell the OP. Just because her daughter said this is how it went down doesn't necesarily mean thats right. Her daughter would have been shaken up and scared (as said by OP) so she may have got details muddled. We're also going by her daughters story, relayed to the worrying mum, relayed online so its starting to sound slightly chinese whispery.

The OP doesn't know the whole incident as she wasn't there (like you said) so when people have said maybe she has a few details wrong why does she get so defensive? Knows her daughter has done wrong (een if only 10%) and is scared?

In my opinion (and the opinion shared by the majority of posters in this thread) the daughter was partially to blame. Maybe ten of us are wrong and one of us is right. We'll see when the OP's daughter has been to court.

scubaangel

gaz_jones wrote: »

In my opinion (and the opinion shared by the majority of posters in this thread) the daughter was partially to blame. Maybe ten of us are wrong and one of us is right. We'll see when the OP's daughter has been to court.

I dont remember reading anything about relevant law - a few cases were mentioned but not expanded upon as why they might be relevant (at least not that I could see and given the overall tone of some posts I'm not surprised these have been removed as I dont think the board guides can edit posts other than their own)

Of course her DD could be partly to blame but I dont think OP has ever said her DD has absolutely no liabilty - simply that from an early point she was being attacked by asbokid and I think there have been several posters who missed the fact that the driver hit was turning across oncoming traffic.
And at the end of the day like you say we have a worried mum, a new driver who has just had a fairly big accident - probably her first, and in a brand new car things bound to make odd details fuzzy (I remember writing off my first car and couldnt remember which road i was on when telling the insurance co but could remember the details of the sheep -size, colour, markings in the road perfectly....)
Quite right it has all got chinese whispery and since OP's query was about insurance premiums not liability the thread has veered totally OT (of course premiums are affected by liability but noone actually said that until after the inflamatory posts had started). And on that note I shall bow out.

gaz_jones

scubaangel wrote: »

I Of course her DD could be partly to blame but I dont think OP has ever said her DD has absolutely no liabilty - simply that from an early point she was being attacked by asbokid

I've just had a quick flick through the first 3 pages and found a few examples of where the OP has said this:

MrsE wrote: »

She was driving down the road & someone coming the opposite direction crossed her path to turn right into a side road without looking or giving way, how can she be at fault?

MrsE wrote: »

My question about loosing her no claims bonus, assuming she is found without fault (& I'm confident she will be), will she loose her no claims? She will have had a claim, but it will be there other parties fault.

MrsE wrote: »

Well they collided, but only because the woman turned right in front of an on coming car.

You really don't see how an insurance company can decide who is at fault?

If you are driving down the road & want to turn right, you have to wait till there is no on coming traffic, you can't just swing out into on coming traffic, that causes accidents, you are driving into the path of on coming cars, whom have right of way.

MrsE wrote: »

Because of what I highlighted in red.

Thats exactly what happened to my DD, some idiot ploughed into her.

And on that note I shall bow out.

Sirbendy

I always err on the cautious if I see a situation like that..it's as simple to let them go. The only ones that really yank my chain are those fools that reverse out into a road without looking..god knows I've had occasion to use my horn there...

I remember that Fiesta that hit me - it LOOKED a little ruffled at the front, but nothing obviously knackered on the surface. The amount of fluids it was dumping/steam it was belching, and the fact that they couldn't open the front doors says that he bent his chassis/smashed his radiator and the deformable bumpers just reshaped.

To be fair to my Astra, it still ran fine and drove fine, but the doors wouldn't shut/open properly, and the rear boot floor was gone. I was more surprised that a mk6 Fiesta could do a head-on and yet fail to deploy any airbags or restraint systems. Poor show Ford.

I've been a passenger in 2 accidents..both in Volvos. one hit head on by a metro with a drunk in charge...engine/suspension was shunted backwards, his car was destroyed..got out with no injury at all. The other was driver error - it got launched into a telegraph pole..again, no problems.

I've only been in 1 that was my fault...I hit a diesel spill and slid at low speed into the back of a parked van. Not exactly much I could do though..heh. It was the van that was leaking, too.

andyrules

I think in fairness Mrs E did say at some point that she thought her DD had some liability by not responding to what was happening. Indeed, if the person behind managed to stop, maybe they were reading the road better.

Mrs E, possibly your biggest downfall on here is to mention whiplash so perhaps that's best left with you!

I've responded a couple of times about your main query - insurance so hope you have managed to read those posts as you have not indicated thus. Sorry if you have, I am finding this thread quite difficult to follow as posts keep disappearing!

Be thankful your DD is OK, by the sound of the KA and its seats it may not have withstood a greater impact.

Crazy_Jamie

To be honest I'm not too bothered about the 'deleted posts conspiracy', but my posts are certainly still there. They are posts 88 and 93.

I had backache and neckache for a few days

I had neck pain which set in the following evening and lasted 24-48 hours. I also had a bruise on my shoulder from the seatbelt. My GP suggested paracetamol.

Whilst I commend both of you in terms of your general perspective and priorities, these injuries are actually worth next to nothing anyway. I set down a general guideline in an earlier post that a whiplash injury would be 'worth claiming for' if the symptoms were moderate and lasted for roughly 3-4 weeks. The reason I put it at that level is because whiplash injuries at that level are worth around about the £1,000 mark, which is the magic number that will result in a solicitor taking the claim on a Conditional Fee Agreement ('no win no fee', which ultimately is one of the perceived causes of the 'compensation culture' anyway).

The thing I have a problem with, to be perfectly honest, is this automatic assumption taking by many people that anyone who claims to be injured as a result of an accident caused by somebody else's negligence is automatically in some way making up or exaggerating their symptoms and claiming for the sake of money. This is frankly an ignorant point of view. If somebody is injured as a result of someone else's negligence (and I am not talking about two days of aching, but more significant injuries), then they are fully entitled to claim compensation, and quite rightly so. In bringing claims in such circumstances people are exercising their civil rights, and should not automatically be the subject of abuse for doing so. Yes, there are people out there who bring fraudulent claims and exaggerate their symptoms. But those people are in a vast minority, and tarnishing everyone with that brush is just ridiculous.

There was actually a thread a few months ago in the insurance forum where somebody was asking for advice in a personal injury claim. They had suffered a serious foot injury in a high speed collision with another vehicle. The other driver had been killed in the collision, but was entirely to blame for the accident (and liability had been admitted by his insurers). The poster injury was clearly significant, and had prevented them from working for long periods, putting them in severe financial hardship. They were asking for advice regarding how to advance the claim, and another poster actually came in and criticised the poster for chasing money when the other person had died. That post, to be frank, disgusted me, and it surprises me the number of people who share the same attitude. Granted, no one else that I have seen has come up with something quite as insensitive as that, but the point stands that these people who blindly criticise those making personal injury claims are doing so out of brute ignorance and nothing more.

EDIT: Found the thread. It's here.

TMFTP wrote:

This is now slightly different. It's not ONE driver having a mad moment - which your DD can't account for.

Your DD has now seen THREE cars trying to make the same turn - and hasn't slowed down. If one of the previous two cars had found it's way blocked - and had to stop - presumably DD would have hit them instead - instead of slowing down...

In my previous posts I had made the assumption that MrsE's daughter was speeding. If that is not the case, then I do not see how contributory negligence can be found here. When somebody is turning right and crossing oncoming traffic it is their responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient time and space to turn. If there isn't that is the fault of the driver turning. It is certainly not the fault of the other driver for failing to slow down. Yes, a more experienced driver may have avoided the accident. But that does not mean that just because she did not avoid the accident, MrsE's daughter was negligent. If she was travelling within the speed limit and in the absence of any other factors that we don't know about, I do not see how she can be.

She had the right of way. Whilst good driving practice may dictate slowing down if traffic ahead is turning right into your path, she is not legally required to do so, and cannot be negligent if she does not. The onus is entirely on the other drivers to ensure that there is sufficient time and space to turn. The first two drivers complied with this duty. The third driver did not, and must be found negligent as a result. It really is very straightforward, at least legally.

Sirbendy

I did make a joke at the scene of mine..I was leaning on the car and limping anyway (disability)...I looked at the lad and said "this is NOT normal, look at me, I'm limping"...he looked dead panicky..and I burst out laughing and said "normally it's FAR worse. Don't worry, I've been like this for 32 years."

Its one way to break the shock/ice after all..

asbokid

scubaangel wrote: »

I dont remember reading anything about relevant law - a few cases were mentioned but not expanded upon as why they might be relevant

And so, on the arbitrary decision of a person or persons unknown, and applying what "scubaangel" claims was a test of "relevance", those examples from motor claims case law were simply airbrushed from this forum.

Were you party to the deletion of those case references, "scubaangel" ? You seem to be the only poster defending that censorship.

The messages I posted which referenced those cases also contained brief excerpts from the judgments. These ran to no more than a few sentences per judgment. So the accusation of copyright infringement is a non-starter as well.

I would argue that those court cases were extremely relevant to this claim. I'm certainly not re-typing anything to explain why, but it's pretty obvious that the defence of contributory negligence due to excessive speed is a very "relevant" argument in the circumstances.

I also note that my one line reference to the Court of Appeal judgment in Clarke v Ardington (the Credit Hire firms) has also been deleted!

Good grief! Just what is going on with this forum?!

The behaviour of the anonymous moderator(s) in relation to this discussion strikes me as being deeply concerning.

Personal injury compensation is unsurprisingly an emotive issue, but the censorship of this discussion is clearly partisan, and reprehensible for that reason.

Who are the moderators in this forum, and precisely what relationship do they have with the initiator of this thread, "MrsE" ?

scubaangel

asbokid wrote: »

And so, on the arbitrary decision of a person or persons unknown, and applying what "scubaangel" claims was a test of "relevance", those examples from motor claims case law were simply airbrushed from this forum.

Were you party to the deletion of those case references, "scubaangel" ? You seem to be the only poster defending that censorship.

The messages I posted which referenced those cases also contained brief excerpts from the judgments. These ran to no more than a few sentences per judgment. So the accusation of copyright infringement is a non-starter as well.

I would argue that those court cases were extremely relevant to this claim. I'm certainly not re-typing anything to explain why, but it's pretty obvious that the defence of contributory negligence due to excessive speed is a very "relevant" argument in the circumstances.

I also note that my one line reference to the Court of Appeal judgment in Clarke v Ardington (the Credit Hire firms) has also been deleted!

Good grief! Just what is going on with this forum?!

The behaviour of the anonymous moderator(s) in relation to this discussion strikes me as being deeply concerning.

Personal injury compensation is unsurprisingly an emotive issue, but the censorship of this discussion is clearly partisan, and reprehensible for that reason.

Who are the moderators in this forum, and precisely what relationship do they have with the initiator of this thread, "MrsE" ?

I can assure you I have nothing to do with what you call censorship - try asking the board guides for this particular board as it is likely to be one of them who has removed the posts. And far from 'defending' the removal of the posts I have offered suggestions from my own OPINIONS as to why that may be, without a comment from the board guides we cant know what the reasons were, but as I observed I was/am under the impression that guides cannt edit or modify posts if parts of the content happens to be relevant if other sections could have been consider abusive (and presumably reported as such for action to have been taken) - though I expect the details of that can be found in the forums t&c's.

I say that I dont know of the relevance of the cases you mention because at the time they didnt strike me as being closely relevant from the summaries - but I am no expert and have no knowledge of case law and was only skim reading the thread.

I'm pretty sure that MrsE was not suggesting that her dd would be claiming for personal injury unless it is warranted - so comments along those lines would seem superfluous for the time being and prehaps the subject of a later thread if necessary.

asbokid

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

To be honest I'm not too bothered about the 'deleted posts conspiracy', but my posts are certainly still there. They are posts 88 and 93.

You must know that is not true, Crazie Jamie.

At least two more of your messages in this thread have been deleted since yesterday.

In the first of those messages, you yourself challenged MrsE's claim that her daughter had suffered whiplash.

And in another message, again in this thread, you responded to my query over your professional qualifications. I also asked about the "advice" you were giving to MrsE, and whether you were appropriately indemnified to issue that advice.

Surely you haven't forgot those discussions already, CJ? They took place less than 24 hours ago.