Car Crash - Child Injury claim

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

It would be reasonable to state the actual injury or why bother to mention it at all? If you were posting about a ski-ing accident and you had suffered a broken leg you wouldn't just say you had bruises. There was no onus on hm to disclose but having done so it seems obvious to me that he did disclose the true extent of the injury....bruising.

How exactly is that obvious? On reading the original statement I would suggest that the purpose of it was to advance information that it was not a serious accident. I personally didn't take that statement as him clarifying the full extent of the injuries, and indeed it seems that I wasn't alone in that considering the comments made by others. You clearly interpreted it differently, but at the very least there was scope for you to be wrong about that. And given the OP's subsequent clarifying of the injuries, the obvious conclusion is that the view taken of the original post my myself and others was correct, and that yours was not. Yet instead of accepting that you're essentially accusing the OP of lying without any real basis for doing so. He has absolutely no reason to lie here, and indeed suggesting that your interpretation of an ambiguous comment is sufficient to show that he is lying is ridiculous. The one person who does know what he meant by what he said is him, yet you somehow seem to think that you know better in that regard.

Of course it is possible that he is lying, but in the circumstances it is unlikely, and your assertion that his original intention is 'obvious' is unfounded in any event.

poet123 wrote:

I am sorry if some people don't like having this pointed out, but why would this not be the correct place, it is not a discussion, it is fact, if you claim for injury it should be warranted, on the info given this doesn't seem to be the case here. You can hypothesise as much as you want but the OP gave us the info we can only go on that.

I agree, and he has stated that the injuries ultimately developed as bruising, whiplash and sleep issues. Rather than trying to read something into his posts that frankly isn't there, you could just take him at face value.

poet123

You are entitled to your opinion, mine is that if he stated "they walked away with only bruises" that is what he meant. If he had stated at the time of the accident only bruising was apparent, later other issues surfaced then that is what he meant. He said the former in his OP. The way people couch their initial posts is usually quite telling. I don't think the OP did clarify the injuries as much as add to them when challenged. You, of course, are entitled to think differently.

We will have to agree to differ here. However, the general consensus of the thread is that insurance companies are fair game and that the slightest bump warrants a PI claim. That is something I fundamentally disagree with, and which I am entitled to express as and when I see fit, such as in a thread about........insurance!!

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion, mine is that if he stated "they walked away with only bruises" that is what he meant. If he had stated at the time of the accident only bruising was apparent, later other issues surfaced then that is what he meant. He said the former in his OP. The way people couch their initial posts is usually quite telling. I don't think the OP did clarify the injuries as much as add to them when challenged. You, of course, are entitled to think differently.

Fair enough. We can leave it at that.

poet123 wrote:

We will have to agree to differ here. However, the general consensus of the thread is that insurance companies are fair game and that the slightest bump warrants a PI claim. That is something I fundamentally disagree with, and which I am entitled to express as and when I see fit, such as in a thread about........insurance!!

It is interesting that you feel that the consensus is against you, considering that more members have expressed opinions that would support your view than would lean against it. Your primary debate on that issue has been had with mikey, and others giving procedural advice such as myself, Quentin, Geri and Sarah haven't actually commented directly upon it. Threads such as this tend to follow the pattern of a few members answering the questions asked, and then others jump in randomly with the sole intention of criticising the claim/claims generally, and inevitably derailing the thread in the process. This thread was about procedure for investing compensation paid to a child following an injury, and not what has subsequently been debated. Ultimately those who jump in with sweeping criticism of the system usually (though not always) have relatively little knowledge of it, unlike those who actually make an attempt to address the question(s) posed. Personally I don't understand why those people respond to the thread at all; the opinions expressed are generally similar to those from other threads and make no attempt to actually be constructive within the context of the question asked. Yet it is simply a fact that this cycle repeats itself from thread to thread, and I highly doubt that my opinion on it will do anything to discourage it from happening countless times in future.

poet123

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Fair enough. We can leave it at that.

It is interesting that you feel that the consensus is against you, considering that more members have expressed opinions that would support your view than would lean against it. Your primary debate on that issue has been had with mikey, and others giving procedural advice such as myself, Quentin, Geri and Sarah haven't actually commented directly upon it. Threads such as this tend to follow the pattern of a few members answering the questions asked, and then others jump in randomly with the sole intention of criticising the claim/claims generally, and inevitably derailing the thread in the process. This thread was about procedure for investing compensation paid to a child following an injury, and not what has subsequently been debated. Ultimately those who jump in with sweeping criticism of the system usually (though not always) have relatively little knowledge of it, unlike those who actually make an attempt to address the question(s) posed. Personally I don't understand why those people respond to the thread at all; the opinions expressed are generally similar to those from other threads and make no attempt to actually be constructive witonstrate hin the context of the question asked. Yet it is simply a fact that this cycle repeats itself from thread to thread, and I highly doubt that my opinion on it will do anything to discourage it from happening countless times in future.

Those who attempt to answer a question and who do not pick up the OP on obvious issues raised (such as the one in the OP) do not only demonstrate their knowledge.;)

I didn't jump in with sweeping criticism of the system, the system is fine, it is the people who circumvent the system by exaggerating their injuries who are at fault. How can you blame a system? If someone is prepared to lie, hoodwink doctors and fill themselves full of pills to achieve a settlement, no system in the world will fully be able to prevent that. And we all know that goes on.

Threads evolve as people from all walks of life, with all kinds of experience pass comment, that is the nature of a forum. "Knowlege" and "experience" comes in many guises, professional and personal and everyone is entitled to comment whichever camp they belong to.

In fact, those who do not come at it from a professional perspective, ( that of providing the correct legal advice, regardless of the morality or lack thereof being displayed)may actually contribute more pertinently than those who do.

Which is why, when there is a moral (for want of a better word) aspect to the topic, one which affects society as a whole, I don't think any viewpoint should be discouraged, particularly one which puts the focus on that aspect rather than cold hard cash. What is constructive is open to interpretation, if something is blithely accepted enough times without comment it becomes the norm, a different view is often useful.....Emporer's New Clothes comes to mind.

Perhaps the professionals on here could actually state whether they condone lies or exaggeration, whether they consider that the parameters of the "system" means all is fair game?

ROY47

I still stand by my view as the claim against their mother is taking the p...

As we all know the op may have shot himself in the foot by saying minor bruising and walking away
To then go on and say that 2 kids 5 & 7 year old needed sleeping pills ??

I may be wrong but you don't give youngsters that age sleeping pills !!

I stand by my statement that where there's a blame there's a claim is totally over the top

as a prime example someone in work with me ,his daughter was stationary in a traffic jam ,woman behind in his daughters own words "rolled in to me at about 5 mph "
cracked number plate is all she had on the car

Went to hospital etc. claimed whiplash from other drivers insurance and ended with £1200 compensation :j

When he asked why did you claim ?

Her reply was everyone else does so why not :T
She's complaining now that her renewal is £1600 more because of her claim

good enough for her for taking the mickey

But I also blame the insurance companies for their part in these "scams"

WE all complain about the cost of insurance , I wonder why it's so high ??

I now know the answer , after having thought about it , COMPENSATION for everyone !!

Yes if someone is badly injured and can't work or looses a limb etc. then compensation may be justified

but as we all know ....................... blaim and claim etc. etc.

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

Those who attempt to answer a question and who do not pick up the OP on obvious issues raised (such as the one in the OP) do not only demonstrate their knowledge.;)

I may be missing something obvious, but you've lost me with that comment.

poet123 wrote:

I didn't jump in with sweeping criticism of the system, the system is fine, it is the people who circumvent the system by exaggerating their injuries who are at fault. How can you blame a system? If someone is prepared to lie, hoodwink doctors and fill themselves full of pills to achieve a settlement, no system in the world will fully be able to prevent that. And we all know that goes on.

I didn't say you did. The comment that you're referring to was me talking generally.

On a small side note, plenty who contribute in this forum do blame the system in one way or another, be it the insurance companies, the types of funding, the nature of litigation, the solicitors, or a few other possibilities. But that is most certainly something to be dealt with another time.

poet123 wrote:

Which is why, when there is a moral (for want of a better word) aspect to the topic, one which affects society as a whole, I don't think any viewpoint should be discouraged, particularly one which puts the focus on that aspect rather than cold hard cash. What is constructive is open to interpretation, if something is blithely accepted enough times without comment it becomes the norm, a different view is often useful.....Emporer's New Clothes comes to mind.

There's nothing wrong with this as a general principle, but before you try to apply it to threads like this you may want to hang around for a while and watch what happens. A range of opinions within any given debate is obviously beneficial as a general rule, but that is not absolute and doesn't mean that every opinion is valid and/or constructive irrespective of where and when it is expressed. The tendency of what is a constant cycle of members in this forum to jump into specific threads relating to personal injury litigation and throw in opinions based on little more than media sensationalism and pub talk irrespective of the specific issue within the thread as predictable as it is tiresome, and it benefits nobody, not least the individual who comes in to this forum seeking help. That person is inevitably forgotten in the ensuing aftermath, which undermines the purpose of this forum as one that exists to guide members of the public in matters that they need assistance with.

I'm sure you would agree that comments and opinion have their time and place. We are simply disagreeing as to what that appropriate time and place is in this case. Yet another area where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

poet123 wrote:

Perhaps the professionals on here could actually state whether they condone lies or exaggeration, whether they consider that the parameters of the "system" means all is fair game?

Obviously I condone neither. But as I said, I have quite deliberately not entered that debate. If you want a discussion on any aspect of the system or the people who make use of it, I would be happy to play my part. That would require another thread, but quite genuinely if you do want to discuss this further go ahead and make that thread and I'll gladly contribute.

kiss_me_now9

Quentin wrote: »

Totally uncalled for. And irrelevant to the thread.

As pointed out to another sermoniser, this is not the place for you to discuss the rights of children to have their parents look after their interests when they are innocently injured in a car!

And this was no accident! You don't drive into lamposts purely by accident!

Do you drive into them on purpose then? Lots of people do drive into lamposts by accident... And bollards, and street signs, and trees...

Quentin

kiss_me_now9 wrote: »

Do you drive into them on purpose then? Lots of people do drive into lamposts by accident... And bollards, and street signs, and trees...

Presumably a negligent driver drove into the post in this incident.

ROY47

Quentin wrote: »

Presumably a negligent driver drove into the post in this incident.

you got it wrong again !!!

It was one of them jumping lamposts that hide behind hedges and jump out at you

mikey72

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,It is interesting that you feel that the consensus is against you, considering that more members have expressed opinions that would support your view than would lean against it. Your primary debate on that issue has been had with mikey, and others giving procedural advice such as myself, Quentin, Geri and Sarah haven't actually commented directly upon it.....

For the record, my first post was

mikey72 wrote: »

Whoever told you the first bit should have told you the second bit as well really.

It is money to provide compensation for whatever their injuries were, so needs to be spent accordingly.

which you agreed with and expanded on, so I think we're singing off the same hymnsheet here.

I don't know any of the fact around the claim, so I'm happy to take the op at face value.