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

Ray_Singh-Blue

JP08 wrote: »

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.

Absolutely. No offence intended, but give me the choice between £192K and your right arm, I'd take the money :beer:

Tothepoint.

iammumtoone wrote: »

^^ I pay my car insurance I sometimes wonder why I bother. If I stop paying it, it seems if someone hits me no problem I can still claim fully against them. If I hit someone, well they can try to sue me they might win but they can't get what I don't have so I won't lose anything. I am paying out 100s each year that I don't need to.

But that aside the law is the law then if the OPs brother wasn't insured then he has every right to claim off the other parties insurance.

The law needs changing so an uninsured/no MOT driver can't claim against anyone. Maybe more people would have insurance if that was the case.

I doubt it would make any difference.

Squirrel85

Thank you to those who didn't give me a summary of my brothers morals - I already know he is an idiot. I also do not require a lecture on how dangerous drunk driving is - I know. Nor was I asking for anyones sympathy. My mum and I are ashamed of him and mortified of what he has done.

I'm after legalities not ethics. He will be punished fo the drink driving and driving without tax etc. as he should be. Whether that is sufficient decide for yourself but I don't need to know.

It will take him 3 months mininimum to walk again and that's if there are no complications. My mum will have to care for him during this time. He will have physical problems for life as his leg is now bolted together with metal. So, while I'm his severest critic, I do still feel he needs to financially get by till he can work again and deserves some compensation as genuinely his being over the limit did not contribute to the accident and the man driving the car did a very stupid and impatient thing to cause this accident.

It is the legal side I'm interested in - thank you to the few people who gave me an answer to this. It was helpful.

iammumtoone

Squirrel85 wrote: »

as genuinely his being over the limit did not contribute to the accident and the man driving the car did a very stupid and impatient thing to cause this accident.

Unless the exact same accident happened to a sober person I think this will be difficult to prove. There might have still been an accident but it might not have been so serious if your brother had been sober.

It is a proven fact that drunk drivers are not as capable drivers and their reactions are not as good as those who are sober otherwise it would not be against the law to drink and drive.

I think your best bet would to be speak to a no win no fee solicitor, that will tell you if there is a high chance of a claim otherwise they will not take the case on.

Tothepoint.

curlywurlytalktalk wrote: »

As long as liability is clear cut and attaches to the third party, your bother will be able to claim for personal injury and uninsured losses related to the accident. Get him to see a solicitor asap on a no win, no fee basis. He will be able to claim as if he were fully insured. The only thing he won't be able to claim for is a hire bike whilst his if off the road. I doubt he'd need one as he can't walk.

What actually happened?

Why not?????

Tothepoint.

curlywurlytalktalk wrote: »

If he got a hire bike paid for by the third party, he'd be in a better position than he was before the accident as he would have an insured bike whereas before the accident, he had an uninsured bike.

But if he didn't get a hire bike he wouldn't be in the pre accident position. Have you got something to back that up or have you just made it up?

Marvel1

The only thing annoys me in general is, I think I'm right and correct me if wrong, if uninsured is at fault, the innocent insured would have a hell of a job claiming back losses.

Mercdriver

curlywurlytalktalk wrote: »

If he got a hire bike paid for by the third party, he'd be in a better position than he was before the accident as he would have an insured bike whereas before the accident, he had an uninsured bike.

No he wouldn't be in a better position, he would simply have something ride in lieu of the bike that was written off/damaged. If what you said were true no one would get hire cars in the event of an accident.

Tothepoint.

Mercdriver wrote: »

No he wouldn't be in a better position, he would simply have something ride in lieu of the bike that was written off/damaged. If what you said were true no one would get hire cars in the event of an accident.

Once it's a write off you lose the hire car anyway.

Mercdriver

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Once it's a write off you lose the hire car anyway.

Well yes, my point is that a hire car/bike isn't a financial advantage.