Hitting a pedestrian

gaz06

Iamana1ias please Read below email


"Dear Mr Shaw,

If you could send me a photocopy, however I must see the original version. I will also have to get SIMS Field Investigators to obtain a signed Indemnity form from the parents/Litigating friend, this to indemnify you and Swiftcover Insurance from any future claims that maybe made in the future by the minor.

It is only until I have received a signed parental indemnity form that the claim will be closed off and not earlier.


Yours sincerely
Harry Fernandes"

lisyloo

You won't have resolution until the child reaches 21 (sigh)

Do you have reason to think they can't sign away their rights with an indemnity form?
Can you provide references to back up your legal point?
I'm pretty sure that if the solicitors get things done right they can settle in "full and final settlement".
If you disagree please provide your source.

gaz06

May i just say a big thanks to many of you who especially today have stood up for me regarding this issue. Although some not so nice comments and un-helpful info. You have given me hope in getting this resolved i know i probably shouldnt have gone back round to the parents but i felt i needed to take some action myself. Anyway i shall keep you updated and let you know how monday goes .

mattymoo

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you have reason to think they can't sign away their rights with an indemnity form?
Can you provide references to back up your legal point?
I'm pretty sure that if the solicitors get things done right they can settle in "full and final settlement".
If you disagree please provide your source.

The parental indemnity form is a red herring.

They are used when a child sues in the name of the parent. Once the settlement is agreed, the indemnity form is signed by the parent to indicate the settlement is in full and final settlement and that the parent will be responsible if the child needs to make further claims in the future.

http://www.itsmyclaim.com/content/parental_indemnity.html
http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/en/child-claims/child-accident.html
http://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2010/03/09/the-parental-indemnity-trap/

No parent in their right mind is going to sign a PIF that signs away the right to even commence a claim against the motorist. They would be leaving themselves wide open to claims against themselves.

As for solicitors - I cannot see any involved Lisyloo. SIMS are investigators, not solicitors.

bryanb

lisyloo wrote: »

This does not indicate the OP is at fault.
If a suicidal person throws themself at your car or jumps from a bridge right in front of your car, then there is nothing you can do.
Do you think train drivers are to blame when someone jumps on the track?

Try reading the rest of rule 152

lisyloo

Why don't you just put up the bits you are specifically referring to? and save some time/effort?
If you make me guess what point you are trying to make we could be here a long time.

It's my belief that if someone jumps out in front of you, runs towards your car, or drops on top of you from a bridge then there is nothing you can do (and police and courts have certainly ruled on this).
I am a member and volunteer for Road safety charities (IAM & ROSPA) and I certainly believe in careful driving beyond the legal liabilities, but I don't think it's possible to avoid things dropping out of the sky onto you.

I am not necessarily arguing about what you want to argue about so why don you be specefic about the point you want to make?
Otherwise I'll just go on guessing and probably repeating myself.

gordikin

Lisyloo, what does 'careful driving beyond the legal liabilities' mean?

pedro123456

Sorry but you're completely wrong on a number of points.
Don't use other's tragedy for your own campaign - troll. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bout time you mentioned a spread sheet loobyloo :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

gaz06

gordikin wrote: »

Lisyloo, what does 'careful driving beyond the legal liabilities' mean?

Walking :rotfl:

bryanb

lisyloo wrote: »

Why don't you just put up the bits you are specifically referring to? and save some time/effort?
If you make me guess what point you are trying to make we could be here a long time.

It's actually fairly simple to read the highway code, even if you don't have a paper copy it's available on line.

However leaving that aside, the Op stated that the child ran from behind a parked vehicle. Then said hit her trailing leg, this means the child ran right accross the front of his vehicle and was nearly clear before the impact. The time necessary for her to be almost clear indicates one of two things.

!. Travelling too fast in the circumstances.
2. Reaction times performing the emergency stop too long

Do you have another possible explanation? She must have been in sight for at least 3-4 seconds