Bro knocked off motorbike, not his fault, BUT...

Squirrel85

Hello.
I am hoping someone can advise me. My brother has been knocked off his motorbike and is on hospital with a broken femur and pelvis. The other driver has admitted it was his fault and my brother did nothing to cause the accident...However, and it is a big one, my brothers bike was not taxed or insured and he was over the limit (we do not condone his lifestyle - he has always been wayward). Obviously he has been arrested for those two offences.

My question is will he get any payout from the man's insurance company based on this? He will be unable to work for minimum 3 months and who knows the physical ramifications in future. And technically despite his idiocy no one is disputing that it was the other man's fault entirely. Can anyone advise please? Thank you

Nobbie1967

The only reason to reduce his payout would be if they raise the issue of contributory negligence due to him being drunk. However, if this has no bearing on the crash then I don't see how they could argue this.

Should be fine IMHO.

Stevie_Palimo

Very lucky that he didn't hit anyone else here and I think that he is entitled to claim here still but obviously has to be punished for the driving offence, Take this part as you like but in my view I would hope that anything offered as a damages pay out is at the minimum charged in fines to him for being so stupid in the first place.

It is wrong that he rides about on a bike whilst drunk without cover and then thinks oh I will make a claim and profit here, Ethics on this one would say he should not benefit by any financial means.

caprikid1

I guess the challenge may be getting someone to take the claim, drunk without tax and insurance may put them off ?

JP08

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Take this part as you like but in my view I would hope that anything offered as a damages pay out is at the minimum charged in fines to him for being so stupid in the first place.

I see your point, but really they are two separate issues.

The insurance compo only (in theory) puts him back where he was before the accident - so no profit and no ethics to contend with. He might end up with more money, but he will have less bike, or no extra money and the same standard of bike, or lots of money but a leg that doesn't bend any more etc.

The fine / driving ban / punishment is for his offences. The two are not connected.

Stevie_Palimo

JP08 wrote: »

I see your point, but really they are two separate issues.

The insurance compo only (in theory) puts him back where he was before the accident - so no profit and no ethics to contend with. He might end up with more money, but he will have less bike, or no extra money and the same standard of bike, or lots of money but a leg that doesn't bend any more etc.

The fine / driving ban / punishment is for his offences. The two are not connected.

I'd be okay with getting a bike back but anything as profit on top ie:- damages and sitting on a profit would be wrong here so this is why I would hope that one comes in and counteracts the other amount so to speak and at best leave him in a position of having a bike again, Even at that would not really believe he should be on the road anyway.

JP08

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

... profit on top ie:- damages and sitting on a profit ...

But profit would only apply if the damages paid were only inflated compared to the impact on his life. If they were commensurate with the pain inflicted then there is no profit.

To take a not too extreme example, he might have lost the use of an arm through this.

A quick google came up with one example of "The most serious arm injuries, those warranting amputation of all or part of the limb can fetch between £62,000 and £192,000 in compensation" from one compo lawyers site.

Personally, give me the choice between £192k and my right arm - I'd keep the arm ! I wouldn't feel I'd made a profit if I had the money instead. Your opinion on this trade-off may differ.

m0bov

It might cost a fortune in legal fees, what is his loss?

Stevie_Palimo

My point here is that someone showing this level of stupidity should not have any money coming there way no matter what they have happen to them as I believe it is morally wrong. Disagree as you may which I suspect a large number will do so but I pay my tax and insurance and do not see why anyone that does not pay it should be entitled to any help if they choose to drive.

If I put my arm in a lions mouth I'd expect to be bitten, I pay insurance so expect to be covered and someone who does not pay should not be covered.

Aretnap

Your brother's tax and insurance status are not relevant to the other driver's liabilities to him. His drunkenness is not relevant unless his own bad riding somehow contributed to the accident - in which case his damages would be reduced by a percentage to reflect his share of the blame.

He'll be able to claim against the other driver's insurers for loss of earnings, damage to his bike, pain and suffering and for any long term disability that the accident causes him. (He should therefore not accept a final settlement unless he is confident that he knows what the long term effects will be).

As he wasn't insured he will presumably not have motor legal cover which would have provided him with legal representation for free, but he will still be able to engage a personal injury lawyer on a no win no fee basis, which usually means the lawyer taking a fee in the form of a percentage of any compensation that he is awarded.

The criminal matter of riding uninsured/untaxed/over the drink drive limit is separate to his compensation claim and assuming he is prosecuted he can expect a driving ban and a fine.

Guest101

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

My point here is that someone showing this level of stupidity should not have any money coming there way no matter what they have happen to them as I believe it is morally wrong. Disagree as you may which I suspect a large number will do so but I pay my tax and insurance and do not see why anyone that does not pay it should be entitled to any help if they choose to drive.

If I put my arm in a lions mouth I'd expect to be bitten, I pay insurance so expect to be covered and someone who does not pay should not be covered.

The problem is you pay insurance at a minimum to cover other peoples losses, not your own.


Then optionally cover your own.