Hit by a coach - how to go about a claim

Sgt_Pepper_2

rcm75 wrote: »

After it hit me my witness saw it carrying on at high speed.



I'm not sure with regard to right of way. I was not in the middle of the road. As I said I have not seen the conclusion that the police came to with regard to the accident, so I'm not 100% on culpability at this stage. Only impressions.


As I said:
"Because of the speeding of the coach and its closeness to the side of the road. I also suspect its lights were not on, as neither me or my witness saw it coming."


No, but I don't understand the reasoning. You can say this of any situation: if you hadn't been there, it wouldn't have happened.

My reasoning is you were stood in the road not looking at approaching traffic.

You have no evidence of the vehicles speed pre collision. Why can he not travel at the speed limit close to the kerb?

Had you been on the footpath would he have hit you?

That's my he may not be liable.

Given what you have posted I would guess the police will take no further action.

rcm75

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

My reasoning is you were stood in the road not looking at approaching traffic.

I'm not sure why you came to this conclusion. At no stage I said I was not looking at approaching traffic. In fact I am usully quite careful, and have never had an accident before. Also I said that given the speed and the darkness neither I or my witness saw it coming

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

You have no evidence of the vehicles speed pre collision.

No, but.
1) The police might have independent ways of verifying that speed.
2) I have a witness which can testify the speed was high post collision - therefore it must have been even higher pre collision.

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Why can he not travel at the speed limit close to the kerb?

Why did you come to the conclusion that he was "at the speed limit"?

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Had you been on the footpath would he have hit you?

No, but I don't understand the reasoning. You can say this of any situation, even if I was on a zebra crossing: if I hadn't been there, it wouldn't have happened.
(Please do not hijack my zebra crossing example with a sentence like "but you were not on a zebra crossing". It's an example.)

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

That's my he may not be liable.

He might not be liable, but he might. I would like to find out given the distress and injuries I've suffered.

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Given what you have posted I would guess the police will take no further action.

I would rather try and find out rather than guessing.

nickcart

You're always better off going for a traditional, national, large firm. They're more worried about their reputation and so do their best to get you the best fee, rather than the injurylawyers4u type ones that you see on the telly who are just after volumes. For the past few years there's been a new process for personal injury claims whereby solicitors get set fees for most settled cases, regardless of how much work they've put in, so it's in their interest to settle a case quickly. Unfortunately the 'cowboy' firms tend to then rush through cases and miss things, getting the money for PI but forgetting to claim for loss of earnings for example.

In this case however the OP has very low prospects of having a successful claim, and I very much doubt any solicitor would be willing to take on the case with such a high risk. There are some circumstances in which there is very little room for maneuver in the courts and only in very unusual circumstances would liability differ from the norm - if there's a headon smash it's always the fault of the car on the wrong side of the road, if a car goes into the back of another it's always the rear car's fault (even if the car in front braked sharply), and if a pedestrian is in the road then it's their own fault (even if they thought the road was clear). Sounds harsh I know, but to make a settlement you have to be able to prove negligence on the part of the driver, and that would be very difficult. No way to prove he was speeding (a witness commenting on speed post-accident doesn't count as evidence) or that he didn't have lights on, and anyway a slight excess of speed in itself would not count as negligence. The fact is that pedestrians should not be in the road, and if you get hit being somewhere you shouldn't then they're going to tell you it's your fault. Hard luck, and get well soon!

rcm75

nickcart wrote: »

You're always better off going for a traditional, national, large firm. They're more worried about their reputation and so do their best to get you the best fee, rather than the injurylawyers4u type ones that you see on the telly who are just after volumes. For the past few years there's been a new process for personal injury claims whereby solicitors get set fees for most settled cases, regardless of how much work they've put in, so it's in their interest to settle a case quickly. Unfortunately the 'cowboy' firms tend to then rush through cases and miss things, getting the money for PI but forgetting to claim for loss of earnings for example.

In this case however the OP has very low prospects of having a successful claim, and I very much doubt any solicitor would be willing to take on the case with such a high risk. There are some circumstances in which there is very little room for maneuver in the courts and only in very unusual circumstances would liability differ from the norm - if there's a headon smash it's always the fault of the car on the wrong side of the road, if a car goes into the back of another it's always the rear car's fault (even if the car in front braked sharply), and if a pedestrian is in the road then it's their own fault (even if they thought the road was clear). Sounds harsh I know, but to make a settlement you have to be able to prove negligence on the part of the driver, and that would be very difficult. No way to prove he was speeding (a witness commenting on speed post-accident doesn't count as evidence) or that he didn't have lights on, and anyway a slight excess of speed in itself would not count as negligence. The fact is that pedestrians should not be in the road, and if you get hit being somewhere you shouldn't then they're going to tell you it's your fault. Hard luck, and get well soon!

Are you saying *nobody* would take it on, even the high volume firms?
I still don't see why I shouldn't try anyway - I will try to find someone with a no win no fee provision.

R

opinions4u

How the hell has "contact a solicitor" got so complicated?

Get on with it!

Willing2Learn

nickcart wrote: »

You're always better off going for a traditional, national, large firm. They're more worried about their reputation and so do their best to get you the best fee, rather than the injurylawyers4u type ones that you see on the telly who are just after volumes. For the past few years there's been a new process for personal injury claims whereby solicitors get set fees for most settled cases, regardless of how much work they've put in, so it's in their interest to settle a case quickly. Unfortunately the 'cowboy' firms tend to then rush through cases and miss things, getting the money for PI but forgetting to claim for loss of earnings for example.

In this case however the OP has very low prospects of having a successful claim, and I very much doubt any solicitor would be willing to take on the case with such a high risk. There are some circumstances in which there is very little room for maneuver in the courts and only in very unusual circumstances would liability differ from the norm - if there's a headon smash it's always the fault of the car on the wrong side of the road, if a car goes into the back of another it's always the rear car's fault (even if the car in front braked sharply), and if a pedestrian is in the road then it's their own fault (even if they thought the road was clear). Sounds harsh I know, but to make a settlement you have to be able to prove negligence on the part of the driver, and that would be very difficult. No way to prove he was speeding (a witness commenting on speed post-accident doesn't count as evidence) or that he didn't have lights on, and anyway a slight excess of speed in itself would not count as negligence. The fact is that pedestrians should not be in the road, and if you get hit being somewhere you shouldn't then they're going to tell you it's your fault. Hard luck, and get well soon!

The thing is, every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry is coming to this thread and giving their opinion on the outcome of the case or whether there is sufficient evidence when no-one has or will see the evidence. Much better for the OP to see a reputable solicitor listed by the Law Society or Community Legal Commission and getting a professional opinion on whether there is sufficient available evidence supporting a claim against the coach company during the initial assessment/appointment than 'listening' to much of the 'advice' given in this thread.

opinions4u wrote: »

How the hell has "contact a solicitor" got so complicated?

Get on with it!

Yes! Get on with it!

Quentin

rcm75 wrote: »

Are you saying *nobody* would take it on, even the high volume firms?
I still don't see why I shouldn't try anyway - I will try to find someone with a no win no fee provision.

R

High volume doesn't mean they just take on lots of clients.

All will only take clients with a good chance of winning.

See post #2 before you start contacting no win no fee firms and if they are happy to help you can take advantage of their cash back on top of the compensation they win you.

nickcart

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I do definitely think you should have a word with a solicitors (proper big national firm!) to see where you stand, I'm just warning you that I'd be surprised if they took the case on based on what you've said on here, as I can't see how the driver could be found to have done anything wrong. They were perfectly entitled to drive in the road, whether close to the kerb or otherwise, and it's pedestrians who shouldn't be there.

I wasn't actually meaning to suggest that some firms would be more likely to take on low-prospects cases than others (although some might judge the chances of success differently), rather than once they've got your case you're likely to get a better settlement from a proper firm. Anyway, just ring up a solicitors, fill in their forms, and don't be too disappointed if you're not able to claim anything.