Taxi crashed into me, Claim for Injury?

dunroving

wba31 wrote: »

Financial restitution for what though?

If you have been in an accident thats not your fault, then you shouldnt be out of pocket for repairing the car, insurance sorts that.

If injury prevents work and causes loss of earnings, it's understandable to claim that loss back.

but i think what riles people is the claiming for the sake of it, when no financial loss has been caused. The reason being is that the money has to come from somewhere, that somewhere being everybody's premiums. We all moan that premiums are too high, but they are set that way to cover the outlays of the insurance companies before they make their profits. "But they could reduce their profits." they could, as could individuals profiting from an accident that wont cost them anything financially. It's swings and roundabouts, which is why i think it annoys people that the way the original post appeared didnt mention any injuries that had been caused, just whether to claim or not.

Did you consider that it may not even come from his insurance? As he was 3x the legal alcohol limit, I don't even know if his insurance would have been made invalid. Besides, I have also heard of insurance companies paying the third party, then suing the drunk driver to regain the money.

That's not my concern, though. I just realised that my laptop was broken, I am out of pocket due to taxi fares because my friend's car was a write-off, etc., and no--one seemed to be taking care of my situation. I haven't heard from either party's insurance company since the accident.

Besides, even if I hadn't incurred these losses, I'd want to press civil charges against him. Losses aren't just financial. I think the rationale is that a financial value is placed on, for example, loss of enjoyment (I was on holiday at the time but instead of enjoying my holiday, I ended up in A&E). Otherwise the only solution I can think of is an eye for an eye. Give me a baseball bat and let me clobber the idiot over the head with it to see how he likes it.

In the big scheme of things, if he (drunk driver), or his insurance company, ends up paying me £2k for loss of enjoyment, I won't feel in the slightest bit guilty about it. Given the choice, I'd rather not have been hit by a drunk driver in a huge van than get paid £2k. I don't know when I will be fit to return to work but I am sure when I am "fit", I won't be healthy. Why shouldn't he pay for that?

Spicy_McHaggis

dunroving wrote: »

Did you consider that it may not even come from his insurance? As he was 3x the legal alcohol limit, I don't even know if his insurance would have been made invalid. Besides, I have also heard of insurance companies paying the third party, then suing the drunk driver to regain the money.

That's not my concern, though. I just realised that my laptop was broken, I am out of pocket due to taxi fares because my friend's car was a write-off, etc., and no--one seemed to be taking care of my situation. I haven't heard from either party's insurance company since the accident.

Besides, even if I hadn't incurred these losses, I'd want to press civil charges against him. Losses aren't just financial. I think the rationale is that a financial value is placed on, for example, loss of enjoyment (I was on holiday at the time but instead of enjoying my holiday, I ended up in A&E). Otherwise the only solution I can think of is an eye for an eye. Give me a baseball bat and let me clobber the idiot over the head with it to see how he likes it.

In the big scheme of things, if he (drunk driver), or his insurance company, ends up paying me £2k for loss of enjoyment, I won't feel in the slightest bit guilty about it. Given the choice, I'd rather not have been hit by a drunk driver in a huge van than get paid £2k. I don't know when I will be fit to return to work but I am sure when I am "fit", I won't be healthy. Why shouldn't he pay for that?

How is 2k for loss of enjoyment an actual loss?

wba31

dunroving wrote: »

Did you consider that it may not even come from his insurance? As he was 3x the legal alcohol limit, I don't even know if his insurance would have been made invalid. Besides, I have also heard of insurance companies paying the third party, then suing the drunk driver to regain the money.

That's not my concern, though. I just realised that my laptop was broken, I am out of pocket due to taxi fares because my friend's car was a write-off, etc., and no--one seemed to be taking care of my situation. I haven't heard from either party's insurance company since the accident.

Besides, even if I hadn't incurred these losses, I'd want to press civil charges against him. Losses aren't just financial. I think the rationale is that a financial value is placed on, for example, loss of enjoyment (I was on holiday at the time but instead of enjoying my holiday, I ended up in A&E). Otherwise the only solution I can think of is an eye for an eye. Give me a baseball bat and let me clobber the idiot over the head with it to see how he likes it.

In the big scheme of things, if he (drunk driver), or his insurance company, ends up paying me £2k for loss of enjoyment, I won't feel in the slightest bit guilty about it. Given the choice, I'd rather not have been hit by a drunk driver in a huge van than get paid £2k. I don't know when I will be fit to return to work but I am sure when I am "fit", I won't be healthy. Why shouldn't he pay for that?

If your case, your financial loss is your holiday. it may or may not have cost you £2k, that's your business, but im talking in the grand scheme of things.

In the case you experienced, the insurance company will initially pay out, but then reclaim the costs by suing the individual through the county court, that's fair enough, but that's only the case in incidents where the at fault party is uninsured or invalidating their policies.

Taxi driver i imagine is within the realms of his policy, so it's his insurance company that foot the bill.

If the procedure of suing for personal injury losses was one done by suing the individual i think it would be a different matter. however there would be so fewer cases if we did that as im sure most people would offer minimal monthly payments by way of repaying...

londonTiger

cash payments are usually for small damages where both you and the third party stand to lose out far more if you go through insurance as you will need to disclose this for the next 5 years which could be £100 each year on top in premiums.

For someone whose racked up quite a lot of these - it could mean the difference between getting insurance and not getting insurance!

But if there is injury involved then the liability is going to be huge and you'll have to go through insurance (realistically). I know that the owner of tesla crashed a supercar uninsured. But he's stinking rich he can pay cash for any damages.

Anyway, if you're really injured you should give the taxi driver's money back and tell him you're getting insurance involved. Expect to be cross examined by his insurance for any "injuries"

londonTiger

Some people on MSE just love to win an arguement at any lengths, including making up the "facts" to justify the opinion.

I did not hear OP mention anything about alcohol limit. or any alcohol what so ever. Where does dunroving get the idea about being over the alcohol limit?

dunroving

londonTiger wrote: »

Some people on MSE just love to win an arguement at any lengths, including making up the "facts" to justify the opinion.

I did not hear OP mention anything about alcohol limit. or any alcohol what so ever. Where does dunroving get the idea about being over the alcohol limit?

See post #30, I was simply referring to my own recent experience in order to make a broader point.

londonTiger

dunroving wrote: »

See post #30, I was simply referring to my own recent experience in order to make a broader point.

but this thread isn't about your accident, it's about OPs accident. Given the offer of cash for repair, it seems to me like it's a small accident. Other party reversed into him. So it is likely to be a car park accident at <5mph.

dunroving

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

How is 2k for loss of enjoyment an actual loss?

No idea what you are asking. Are you saying enjoyment isn't real or quantifiable? Or can't be "lost"?

So, a car and money are real, but enjoyment isn't?

dunroving

londonTiger wrote: »

but this thread isn't about your accident, it's about OPs accident. Given the offer of cash for repair, it seems to me like it's a small accident. Other party reversed into him. So it is likely to be a car park accident at <5mph.

Like I said, I was simply making a broader point. Last time I checked the site rules, that was allowed.

Spicy_McHaggis

dunroving wrote: »

No idea what you are asking. Are you saying enjoyment isn't real or quantifiable? Or can't be "lost"?

So, a car and money are real, but enjoyment isn't?

Simple thing is your 2k isn't a quantifiable loss.