Neighbours Fallen Tree

dacouch

Innys wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this statement is utter rubbish. I used to work in motor insurance claims and I know that the Road Traffic Act is quite onerous with regard to the obligations of insurers.

However, I won't elaborate as I think this thread is at risk of losing sight of the original question the OP asked.

You can't have been very experienced at motor claims then, try googling "automatism".

I'll give you some links.

"The defence of "automatism" is one such anomaly. The word itself is taken from the Ancient Greek automatos, meaning "self moving, self willed". In personal injury cases the word is used to describe situations where an accident has been caused by an event that is both involuntary and completely unforeseen.

If an insurance company or defendant solicitor is successfully able to argue that an accident was caused by automatism, it will be impossible for a court to ascribe liability, and therefore impossible for a claimant to receive damages, even from the Motor Insurers Bureau, who do not get involved in this kind of case."

http://www.youclaim.co.uk/No-win-no-fee/no-win-no-fee-solicitors-and-defence-anomalies.htm

"Every year, a small number of people are injured in road traffic accidents where liability cannot be established and a defence of automatism, or involuntary action, is used by the defendant. The victim is left injured, with no compensation to ameliorate the situation. It is because of such a case in my constituency that I have been moved to act on this issue and to seek to introduce this Bill.

In 2004, my constituent, Mr. Rajendra Vanker, a research chemist, was seriously injured when he was hit by another car while helping his father to load boxes into his car at the roadside. The driver of the other car had suffered a heart attack prior to the car’s impact on my constituent. Tragically, that driver died later in hospital. My constituent was left unable to walk unaided and in considerable pain. He was unable to return to work, so his career in the chemical industry was ruined. Four years on, he has not received any compensation for the injuries he suffered and he is still receiving medical attention, despite the fact that he played no part in the accident and is an innocent party.

The deceased’s insurers, Halifax Insurance, have refused to pay out any compensation, citing the defence of automatism because the deceased was unconscious at the time of impact and not considered liable for his actions. Halifax Insurance says that, because the deceased cannot be said to be negligent as he was not suffering from cardiovascular disease previously and could not have known that he would suffer a heart attack, it is not liable for any compensation claim for injuries sustained by my constituent, Mr. Vanker"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081119/debtext/81119-0004.htm

If your experience of motor claims and the RTA is so extensive and I'm wrong about the example I gave. Why would No Win No Fee solicitors decline cases involving automatism and why would they be debating in the House of Commons to change the law to prevent the defence of automatism

dacouch

Innys wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this statement is utter rubbish. I used to work in motor insurance claims and I know that the Road Traffic Act is quite onerous with regard to the obligations of insurers.

However, I won't elaborate as I think this thread is at risk of losing sight of the original question the OP asked.

A case of automatism on MSE for you


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4128079