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

curty510

As your brother had no insurance, he has no legal representative to fight his claim-unless he hires one/gets a no win no fee solicitor. I would imagine the other drivers legal team are going to come back and say it wasn't their clients fault as your brother was over the limit.

I think bro is up the creek...a valuable lesson learned i suppose.

Stevie_Palimo

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The problem with that approach is that it would also rule out payments to pedestrians, most cyclists, many horse riders and any uninsured homes you parked through the wall of.

Any compensation payment is only to cover the harm / damage caused by the negligent driver - as mentioned above, a payout in exchange for a life changing injury can hardly be called "profiting" from it.

Sometimes I really do wonder on this forum if people just look to pick faults to cause arguments !!!!

I do not expect a person walking down the street to be insured as you know but thought hold on lets be smart here and look at gaining some points with my peers.

I do expect any bike, car or lorry to be insured as I am and as many other road users are, I also find the point the OP made about him not being drunk enough to have caused the accident well a couple points here for you to consider.

He had no tax and no insurance and was drinking so the full letter of the law states that these reasons alone mean he should not be on the road and if he paid attention to the law then he would not have accident thus meaning that the driver did not come across his path to hit him, I am unsure if there was any fault from your brothers side in any event.

Also just to add to this here I presume his bike did not have an mot on it either in which case if he had of seen a child or any one else come to think of that and due to lack of upkeep through no mot had dodgy brakes we could be looking at man slaughter charges from him.

My point on him getting nothing does and will always stand and nobody will convince me that he deserves a single penny here.

Tothepoint.

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Sometimes I really do wonder on this forum if people just look to pick faults to cause arguments !!!!

I do not expect a person walking down the street to be insured as you know but thought hold on lets be smart here and look at gaining some points with my peers.

I do expect any bike, car or lorry to be insured as I am and as many other road users are, I also find the point the OP made about him not being drunk enough to have caused the accident well a couple points here for you to consider.

He had no tax and no insurance and was drinking so the full letter of the law states that these reasons alone mean he should not be on the road and if he paid attention to the law then he would not have accident thus meaning that the driver did not come across his path to hit him, I am unsure if there was any fault from your brothers side in any event.

Also just to add to this here I presume his bike did not have an mot on it either in which case if he had of seen a child or any one else come to think of that and due to lack of upkeep through no mot had dodgy brakes we could be looking at man slaughter charges from him.

My point on him getting nothing does and will always stand and nobody will convince me that he deserves a single penny here.

Possible but unlikely, death by dangerous driving would also fit. Knowing CPS, they'd probably just go for causing death whilst uninsured as they're most likely to win with that charge.

Stevie_Palimo

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Possible but unlikely, death by dangerous driving would also fit. Knowing CPS, they'd probably just go for causing death whilst uninsured as they're most likely to win with that charge.

Normally is a lesser charge on the roads but being careless or drunk would normally mean a man slaughter charge as standard.

Squirrel85

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Sometimes I really do wonder on this forum if people just look to pick faults to cause arguments !!!!

I do not expect a person walking down the street to be insured as you know but thought hold on lets be smart here and look at gaining some points with my peers.

I do expect any bike, car or lorry to be insured as I am and as many other road users are, I also find the point the OP made about him not being drunk enough to have caused the accident well a couple points here for you to consider.

He had no tax and no insurance and was drinking so the full letter of the law states that these reasons alone mean he should not be on the road and if he paid attention to the law then he would not have accident thus meaning that the driver did not come across his path to hit him, I am unsure if there was any fault from your brothers side in any event.

Also just to add to this here I presume his bike did not have an mot on it either in which case if he had of seen a child or any one else come to think of that and due to lack of upkeep through no mot had dodgy brakes we could be looking at man slaughter charges from him.

My point on him getting nothing does and will always stand and nobody will convince me that he deserves a single penny here.

Had he been taxed and insured and sober he would still be in this situation ad the driver of the car came across his path to hit him.

I never asked what people's opinions of my brothers conduct is. I only want the law - right or wrong, regardless of viewpoint.

Don't you think I agree with most of what your saying? Don't you think I have told him he could have killed someone? He was raised properly and I don't want to feel I am being lectured for my brothers bad behaviour - I came here for advice free of judgement.

We also do not yet know whether the other driver was drunk also. He has admitted complete fault and yet you have not mentioned any repercussions for him and in your prejudice assume his innocence?! I hope both my brother and the other man are fully punished and feel the full weight of the law.

Please refrain from commenting if you cannot answer my question which relates only to my brothers future quality of life. He is young and I hope will learn his lesson and one day be a decent member of society after all my poor mum has been put though.

Stevie_Palimo

Squirrel85 wrote: »

Had he been taxed and insured and sober he would still be in this situation ad the driver of the car came across his path to hit him.

I never asked what people's opinions of my brothers conduct is. I only want the law - right or wrong, regardless of viewpoint.

Don't you think I agree with most of what your saying? Don't you think I have told him he could have killed someone? He was raised properly and I don't want to feel I am being lectured for my brothers bad behaviour - I came here for advice free of judgement.

We also do not yet know whether the other driver was drunk also. He has admitted complete fault and yet you have not mentioned any repercussions for him and in your prejudice assume his innocence?! I hope both my brother and the other man are fully punished and feel the full weight of the law.

Please refrain from commenting if you cannot answer my question which relates only to my brothers future quality of life. He is young and I hope will learn his lesson and one day be a decent member of society after all my poor mum has been put though.

I am not judging you but am against what your brother has done here, As for the other driver being drunk as you say well you would have known by now if this was the case due to him having a breath test at the roadside after the accident which I believe is standard now.

The point of the law here will be as stated, You brother can claim for damages here and would have to go through a no win no fee Solicitor unless he pays for his one which to be honest will be expensive in this situation and I would expect this one to go to the Courts, Money wise for his loss of earnings and for the damages that have happened will likely be offered to him also here, This will not be a standard amount and will be down to specific injuries and time frame taken to recover.

The driver has no option here other than the MIB route so will be out of pocket on this one for a very long time and I do know a case where someone went through the MIB and it took around 2 years to get anything.

agrinnall

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Sometimes I really do wonder on this forum if people just look to pick faults to cause arguments !!!!

And yet your posts in this thread have done just that.

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"

Matthew 7:1-5, King James Version.

Squirrel85

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?

My brother was driving down a main road. A car was turning left on to that road. The driver behind him wanted to turn right, got impatient and pulled in front of the other driver and, assuming it was clear, pulled on to the main road and in to my brother. There were numerous witnesses and no chance for my brother to do anything - it happened in a split second. The man admitted complete fault to the police and never even approached my brother to help - he left that to others. Police said they would have expected ny brothers legs to be halfway down the road in an accident of that calibre. He will never ride a bike again and I believe that is a good thing.

Squirrel85

agrinnall wrote: »

And yet your posts in this thread have done just that.

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye"

Matthew 7:1-5, King James Version.

Thank you. I agree completely

Tothepoint.

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Normally is a lesser charge on the roads but being careless or drunk would normally mean a man slaughter charge as standard.

CPS state

Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving could be proved. This will normally be evidence to show a very high risk of death, making the case one of the utmost gravity. This is in contrast to the statutory offences where all that is required is evidence that the driving was dangerous and that the manner of driving caused the death of another person.

So they wouldn't normally charge with manslaughter.

If the driving were careless then the charge would be death by careless driving and rightly so.