RTA - Need some advice

spursman124

Hi All,

Just need some honest and unprejudiced advice on how to deal with a situation I find myself in. New situation for me and I sincerely hope no one finds themselves in the same position. I'm not sure if this is something that will be frowned upon in this forum or if it even the right place - So forgive me if the above applies.

So I was a pedestrian who was hit by a car. Fairly serious accident...but had a very lucky escape. Without going into details, I had to have two operations on my arm, and suffered a fractured lower spine.

As for the accident itself, I was crossing a road with 2 lanes (one bus and one normal car lane). I wasn't crossing at a designated crossing. I was flashed by the vehicle in the car lane to cross but a vehicle a few cars behind pulled out into the bus lane, didn't realize I was crossing and I was hit. I was flung about 6feet in the air, did a somersault and landed in the main lane again. The car suffered a broken windscreen and a dent in the bonnet. The police arrived on the scene and have taken the relevant details and witness statements and also have access to the CCTV footage. I remember hearing them saying the car was traveling "road speed" but was only 10-15yards from a roundabout and was weaving in and out of traffic.

They have sent me a letter to say a full report will be issued in a few weeks.

Initially, I obviously blamed the driver but now I don't clearly recall what happened that day. I am doubting myself. A well known Central London solicitors firm (not on telly ads) have taken the details and come back to offer to take my case on - but I don't know who is at fault? I don't want to be influenced by these no win no fee firms who just want to make money etc. I've blown them off for now by saying I want to wait for the police report to be issued. Is that the right approach? Please advise.

InsideInsurance

The police deal with criminal matters not civil ones and so whilst the police report can be useful for the purposes of getting witness statements etc it will not express any professional opinion on liability.

Clearly you need professional legal advice, be aware however that the rules for "no win no fee" has changed in recent years in that the solicitor can now keep up to 25% of your award. Different solicitors are wanting different percentages and so check what this is before signing up.

If you have Legal Expenses on your Home insurance they may be able to provide a solicitor under that policy and as such they shouldnt take any of your award. Just be clear you were a pedestrian, if they hear the phrase RTA then they are likely to instantly say it isnt covered.

As to liability, really more queries need to be run - was the traffic moving or stationary. Is the bus lane actually a bus lane at the day/time of the accident. How far back was the car that pulled out and hit you? Assuming you allege he accelerated fast so why didnt you hear him?

In the first instance the solicitor will seek to hold the car that hit you 100% to blame for the accident. The car insurers are likely to push back and say you must be held partially responsible for your own actions of stepping out infront of their car and suggest a reduced liability settlement. Where it will end depends on the above questions and witness statements etc.

spursman124

Hi InsideInsurance...thanks for the reply.

When you say seek professional legal advice…should I just pick up the phone and call any another personal injury solicitors firm? My reservations about this are most are pushy and want you to claim…I'll probably get spam calls/emails and as you stated, they will hold the driver at fault. Or am I overthinking this and this is what I definitely need to do?


I guess my first question is should I pursue a personal injury claim regardless of liability? What are the implications if I am liable?


So the well known firm have said they will claim only 10% of the award. However they started to mention things like dis-embursements and expenses etc and that's where they lost me.


To answer your details questions on liability….


was the traffic moving or stationary – There were two lanes and both were approaching a roundabout which was within 20yards. Main lane was almost stationary. The car in this lane signaled to me to cross and I waved back thanking the driver.


Is the bus lane actually a bus lane at the day/time of the accident – No it was a Saturday so the driver who hit me was permitted to drive in that lane at the time of the RTA.


How far back was the car that pulled out and hit you? – No idea…as I said, he was either directly behind, or a few cars behind the car that let me cross the main lane.
[FONT=&quot]
Assuming you allege he accelerated fast so why didnt you hear him? – The police alleged he may have been traveling “road speed” which was 30 or 40mph so this level of acceleration would not have caused high revs. Also, busy road noise would have blocked it out anyway [/FONT]

InsideInsurance

spursman124 wrote: »

Assuming you allege he accelerated fast so why didnt you hear him? – The police alleged he may have been traveling “road speed” which was 30 or 40mph so this level of acceleration would not have caused high revs. Also, busy road noise would have blocked it out anyway

To do my former job, which is to think about claims in a cold logical way, if he pulled out from 1 or 2 cars behind where you were crossing and managed to get to 30-40 mph then he was accelerating hard

Pedestrians in the UK very rarely have 100% contributory negligence, a former colleague was run over after he ran into the road from between parked cars admitting he didnt check the road was clear and still only had 50% contributory negligence

How to choose a solicitor/ firm is slightly more tricky and not really one for me to advise on. The "problem" is that the firm has a big influence but so does the person who gets allocated the case and in most firms there are some good fee earners and some bad ones.

Most would recommend getting recommendations from others, some prefer the idea of using a local company where you can actually go and see them with it being more likely that a qualified solicitor rather than paralegal will be dealing with the case, others like the typically slightly extended opening hours etc of the more factory firm types.

spursman124

Hi, Thanks again.

So is choosing the right firm/solicitor as simple as shopping for car insurance? Do I pick one, call them, explain what happened, gather details like their fees/processes etc and if i choose to take another firm on, I can just say thanks but no thanks?

With regards to our discussion about liability, the car in question may have been 1-2 cars behind the car that let me cross, but there were significant gaps between the cars as they were approaching the roundabout so they were rolling towards it.

What about the CCTV footage? Who/how can that be accessed?

InsideInsurance

spursman124 wrote: »

Hi, Thanks again.

So is choosing the right firm/solicitor as simple as shopping for car insurance? Do I pick one, call them, explain what happened, gather details like their fees/processes etc and if i choose to take another firm on, I can just say thanks but no thanks?

With regards to our discussion about liability, the car in question may have been 1-2 cars behind the car that let me cross, but there were significant gaps between the cars as they were approaching the roundabout so they were rolling towards it.

What about the CCTV footage? Who/how can that be accessed?

PI claims for anything more than a short spell of whiplash can go on for a long time with a lot of back and forth. I would say its very different than buying insurance where people generally simply go for the cheapest they can get.

Factory firms, those you see advertising, run on the basis of volume. The amount of money they earn, particularly if its only a low percentage of your settlement, is basically fixed unless you get into Multi-Track sort of settlement figures, over £25,000. So they dont really have any incentive to try and get you an extra £500 -v- settling lower to free up that case handler to take on a new case.

Most would argue that some smaller solicitors are a little more "customer orientated" as their clients come more from recommendations than from big budget advertising. So £500 more compensation may not get them much more directly but you going off and telling your friends that they fought tooth and nail for you may well secure them more business in the future.


CCTV can be accessed by the police easily, or by you/ your representatives with a little bit more of a challenge. Firstly find out what CCTV there is that covers the scene and who owns/ operates it. You can then do a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to the owners of it to get a copy of the footage. The only possible problem of this is if they (a) try to argue the rights to anonymity of the others in the footage outweighs your rights for a copy or (b) the footage has already been deleted.

Presumably there has been a police investigation into the incident, ask the investigating officer if CCTV was obtained or not

spursman124

Hi...thanks again.

What I meant was, how do I choose the right solicitor? So there are pros and cons to selecting smaller or larger firms, but lets say I go with a local smaller firm, how do I choose the right one for me? What am I looking for? The percentage/fees is obviously one criteria, but what would other criteria be?

Is it as simple as choosing the one I feel most comfortable with? Can I ring a few up and ask them about fees etc and not be committed to use them?

So the larger firm who I mentioned earlier said they would take 10% plus any expenses or disbursements. I called a local firm, explained what happened, and they were talking to the level of multi track settlement figures to the sum you quoted below. Why such a drastic difference?

Captaincodpiece

Firstly before selecting the correct solicitor I'd fine out if the driver was convicted of any offences.

Quentin

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Firstly before selecting the correct solicitor I'd fine out if the driver was convicted of any offences.

Whether or not the third party gets a criminal conviction is irrelevant to pursuing a civil claim for damages.


(And waiting till the outcome of any criminal proceedings could mean a (very) long delay in starting any claim)

Captaincodpiece

Quentin wrote: »

Whether or not the third party gets a criminal conviction is irrelevant to pursuing a civil claim for damages.


(And waiting till the outcome of any criminal proceedings could mean a (very) long delay in starting any claim)

Correct, but if the evidence obtained by the police suggests the pedestrian is to blame. Bearing in mind a forensic collision investigator will have attended. What claim does he have?

Quentin

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Correct, but if the evidence obtained by the police suggests the pedestrian is to blame. Bearing in mind a forensic collision investigator will have attended. What claim does he have?

The police will not comment on liability (as its a civil matter).


There doesn't have to be a criminal conviction to make a successful civil claim!