CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM - CONFUSED.COM? lol

jlg1

Sorry for the title.

Hi everyone,

I am a bit confused.

I'll try and sum this up as simply as I can. Basically myself and wife were involved in car accident in 2008 - we were hit in the rear. Other driver denied it. He was driving fully laden 20 ton lorry we at that time had a Renault Megane (the car not the MPV).

Car was damaged £385 of damage - we were both hurt - 13 month old son was also strapped in the back.

Lorry hit us - yes, 3 times and I was passenger - facing backwards - seatbelt pulled me forwards. Am self employed so only off work for one day (self employed guitar teacher) though had injuries which basically dragged on for 1 1/2 years. Sore neck, left arm, hand (these greatly affected my work etc...) Wife off work 3 weeks though was sore for long time after - and because I am passenger solicitor said I will be dealt with first.

We were at court on Tuesday - judge ruled there was impact - though we are unclear as to who she actually thought caused this accident. Then seconds later judge dismissed the case.

We were told by our barrister - impact occurred and "that was it?".We didnt totally lose - but there is "no financial reward" at the end of it.

To say we were confused is an understatement. My solicitor phones yesterday and basically says he has spoke to other insurers and if they even offer £50 we are to give it serious consideration.

I am bewildered - if the judge ruled impact occurred and didnt rule out the fact that I could have been injured (court basically thinking my injuries were exaggerated which they werent - 9 medicals were done - yes I know it looks bad) I was injured then why I am not being compensated for my injuries to any reasonable degree - even if it is to match the other sides medical guy?

Basically our medial guy said I was injured - recovery period 18 months - the other sides "hatchett man" as my sol described him - :eek:said 4/5 months and possibly 1 years worth of injuries.

So what I am seeing is - the other insurers want to hand me pitence and get rid of us as our solicitor called this basically a "nuisance payment" - nice- isnt it....LOL

I am awaiting the other sides answer - we went through CRASH (independent accident recovery company) who supposedly will be paying all the costs on our side - yet my solicitor has told me at this stage to "not worry about that yet" he it seems, more or less expected to win.

Told me, had I been hurt for 2/3 weeks judge would have paid out - probably no problem.

So after all that - anyone any thoughts on situation....?

One thing I am wondering who really pulls the strings - is it the barristers with the judge only there as a figurehead or what?

Anyone shed any sort of light on this - much appreciated?

By the way was told an appeal could cost us £14,000 or so - great. :mad:
Cheers

James

Quentin

You had your day in court, and are unhappy with the judgement. (It seems there were no independent witnesses?? If so how could the judge decide who was telling the truth?)

All that's left is for you to appeal. (As you know that involves you in much cost!). But that's justice!

Incyder

It's very complicated. Anyway as you are a guitar fan this may cheer you up a bit. It certainly does me when the chips are down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKovMuzox3Y

alistair.long

It is a little unfair that you have not got anything. It is rare for a person the be fraudulant/exajurating and to not get anything. If the judge has identified the accident has happened, this part of the transcript would be useful, and therefore it is the medical evidence to back up your case. The Judge is not a medical expert and therefore cannot make a decision on the extent of the injuries.

I see from what you have said, is that the barrister has not said to the judge "as you have identified a impact, you must therefore award either the 1 year recovery or 18 months, or if you believe it was less then be it."
You should get something and the barrister will be happy and get paid.

It may be that the judge holds your driver (your wife) responsible so therefore you have a claim against the driver but not against the truck driver.
To claim against the driver you simply tell your Solicitor to go after your drivers insurance, the other side will not be happy (owing £8k) and your legal expense insurance which your Solicitor had may cover it.

This is not a horrible reply but the facts as I see them. Hope this helps.

sarahg1969

If there was a pleading and finding of fraud (you've not said whether or not there was), your ATE insurers may decline to cover your costs. If there was only £385 of damage to your car, and 9 medical reports, it sounds as though the lorry driver's insurers took this case pretty seriously.

If the medical evidence is entirely subjective, which is often is in the case of whiplash (without any objective findings by the medical expert), then the Court is entirely reliant on the OP's credibility. It's possible that the Judge has found the OP's evidence not to be credible, and has therefore made his judgment accordingly.

Hey_Dude

9 medicals.......it does seem odd when most experts' reports are biased towards the claimant.

I can't think of any insurer who would step into court and defend a straight-forward rear end shunt - it is not cost effective.

Sorry but something seems to be amiss with this claim - interesting read though.

Duder

jlg1

alistair.long wrote: »

It is a little unfair that you have not got anything. It is rare for a person the be fraudulant/exajurating and to not get anything. If the judge has identified the accident has happened, this part of the transcript would be useful, and therefore it is the medical evidence to back up your case. The Judge is not a medical expert and therefore cannot make a decision on the extent of the injuries.

I see from what you have said, is that the barrister has not said to the judge "as you have identified a impact, you must therefore award either the 1 year recovery or 18 months, or if you believe it was less then be it."
You should get something and the barrister will be happy and get paid.

It may be that the judge holds your driver (your wife) responsible so therefore you have a claim against the driver but not against the truck driver.
To claim against the driver you simply tell your Solicitor to go after your drivers insurance, the other side will not be happy (owing £8k) and your legal expense insurance which your Solicitor had may cover it.

This is not a horrible reply but the facts as I see them. Hope this helps.

Hi,

No as far as I see it the judge is holding the truck driver responsible - to be honest it was as clear as night and day that he was lying in court. The judge stated "I can see no reason to think that you or your wife were trying to claim fictitiously".

The truck driver also started waffling about how fantastic the side mirrors etc.. were on the lorry and my barrister said "sure these people were IN FRONT of you". he was chancing his arm to be honest.

He even had his "then" boss (truck driver is now retired) with him - who wasnt even there at the accident! LOL - he spoke to him the Monday following (happened on a Sat afternoon) his boss was stupid enough to admit in court that he would NOT report an accident to the insurance company regularly because of the costs to his (bosses) business - he owns the business apparently.

His boss also told the court that the photos of the lorry in question were taken recently - ours were taken the week of the accident (just before I paid to get the car fixed - which I now regret - given the outcome to date - I mean its just ridiculous - some of it...


We have been told clearly "the was impact" (which as my sol put it was the first hurdle overcome) it is unclear who the judge thinks is responsible for that but obviously if my solicitor is chasing the other side for some sort of compensation then their guy, ie the truck driver is at fault.

What I don't get is - if they think I am "exaggerating" my injuries which I am not - but my sol said basically he thinks that's what the court were thinking - my injuries (as the passenger) then they are saying I was ACTUALLY WAS INJURED. But my sol has told me even if they offer £50 I should "give it serious consideration"? that doesn't even cover me for the very first medical as I had to cancel work to attend that one Monday evening (I teach guitar full time and have night and school lessons).

My sol as I sald was calling any payment I receive a "nuisance" fee - a nuisance - when impact was accepted?

The way I see it - they think I'm exaggerating ok - their opinion - - their medical guy said 10 -12 months - my medical guy and a phsychologist who also said I was affected - i.e, fear of driving - PTSD after incident etc.. - they are saying 12-18 months - why not then meet even 1/4 at least of the way and be compensated for the 4-5 months at least.

So I have 9 medicals ALL saying I was hurt/injured/affected by the accident - and it seems they are ALL being totally "ignored" - that seems a bit crazy to me - never heard anything like this before?

Besides the money end of things - what is annoying me is I want him BLAMED for this - we were out shopping minding our own business and he decides to bang into us 3 times - one of the other replies mentioned justice - where the hell is the JUSTICE in that?

James

jlg1

sarahg1969 wrote: »

If there was a pleading and finding of fraud (you've not said whether or not there was),

Hi,

No - absolutely nothing mentioned about fraud - i.e, you mean if they thought I was frauding etc...?

No way - everything I told was the whole truth - my sol told me all along to tell the truth which is exactly what I did - every step of the way - this is why this is so annoying and frustrating.

James

jlg1

Hey_Dude wrote: »

9 medicals.......it does seem odd when most experts' reports are biased towards the claimant.

I can't think of any insurer who would step into court and defend a straight-forward rear end shunt - it is not cost effective.

Sorry but something seems to be amiss with this claim - interesting read though.

Duder

Hi,

Yes I know 9 medicals seems crazy - my sol was following the advise of his medical advisor (who I saw 6 of those times) I also had an MRI done and seen a Psychologist and was diagnosed ot have PTSD for a while as well - the main medical guy at one stage even made a balls up and put in that I had an accident in 2002 which never even happened! LOL - because he saw I had neck pain and jumped the gun - neck pain actually caused on the other (right) side my migraines ( Ive had these all my life) - totally nothing to do with a car accident - I had to get an addendum report done to clear that up.

As regards the 9 medicals - I put it to my sol on Wednesday why he had not said to me - right this is dragging on a bit etc.. he said he took what I said on face value - if he gave me a "cut off" point - then he would be negligent if something flared up later that was missed.

I didnt want 9 medicals I was following his advice every step of the way and he was following his medical experts advice - jeez what a mess! its been thinking back - 2 1/2 years this has taken to get this to court...:mad:

James

jlg1

Quentin wrote: »

You had your day in court, and are unhappy with the judgement. (It seems there were no independent witnesses?? If so how could the judge decide who was telling the truth?)

All that's left is for you to appeal. (As you know that involves you in much cost!). But that's justice!

As regards witnesses - my wife was witness to my injuries - the other guy brought his boss (to court?) who wasnt even there the day of the accident! - what the hell he was testifying for I dont even know - he said he "accepted that Mr did not hit" us the day of the accident.

The Police Man who did the report was on the stand and said that he thought there was impactand he noticed a broken grill on the front of the lorry and also red paint on out bumper - though he said it was on the centre of the bumper and I said it was to the left - which of course was debated over. But the same policeman said he considered it a "very minor impact" through remember he came AFTERWARDS.


I had a member of the public 2 mins after accident happened actually shout over to me "I saw it - he hit you - what a nightmare" regretably I did not ask him to appear in court - I am sorry now I didnt - but was too upset on the day - as my 13 month old was screaming and wife was really shaken up.

James

alistair.long

It is understandabe if the judge cannot make a decisoin, it will go back and forth through courts. sometimes the evedence may differ or sway the judge more towards one side.

This happened in a case I saw, it was undecideeable, then in went to court of apeal, and once again undecideable, then it came back round, and the judge decided that it was 1's fault for not making sure his way was clear. And liability was set 75, and I think the judge made a good enough decision.

in the next hearing you must let your Barister pressurise the judge to make a decision or you will be in limbo, maybe to the fact that it is split 50/50 so that the argument is settled. Personally i think it will be settled 60/40 in your favour as you were hit from the back.