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

Aretnap

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

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...

That's one way of looking at it.

However the other, perfectly reasonable, way of looking at it is that if he'd obeyed the law he would have got his credit card out and bought some tax and insurance before he set off - and he'd have drunk Coke instead of beer (or whatever) in the pub. So he'd still have been on the road, and the other driver would still have pulled out on him without looking, and he'd still have had the accident in spite of being fully compliant with the law.

The law takes the latter view - which is why his lawbreaking does not affect his entitlement to compensation unless it directly contributed to the accident itself. "Shouldn't have been on the road in the first place" is a red herring - he was perfectly entitled to be on the road provided he jumped through a few hoops, and his failure to jump through them did not cause the accident.

Tothepoint.

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

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.

The MIB won't pay, the driver has insurance and he caused the collision.

Tothepoint.

Squirrel85 wrote: »

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.

I'll ask you again, what was his blood alcohol reading?

Stevie_Palimo

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.

http://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gifhttp://static.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/laughing-smiley-014.gif

I do not need any moral or bible lessons thank you and perhaps these should be aimed at the OP's brother, I have not once said anything against the OP either.

Guest101

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

It is not a problem at all that I pay it, My problem is that people who believe they are above the law or just plain stupid still get to cash in on a system that I pay towards, You quite clearly understood this point as usual and seeing me post decided to pick fault at what I wrote.

What?


I didn't say you had a problem paying it. I'm saying the flaw in your argument is that you pay insurance to cover your negligence against 3rd parties.


This person was in essence no different to a pedestrian, cyclist or a number of other road users who do not have insurance.


The person also doesn't cash in, as the payment is to return them to the position but for your actions or negligence.


(I still don't know who you are, so honestly i'm not stalking you)

Squirrel85

Tothepoint. wrote: »

I'll ask you again, what was his blood alcohol reading?

Sorry we don't yet know his reading but he believes he was over the limit
If he has been told he has not told me that is.

dannyrst

Squirrel85 wrote: »

Sorry we don't yet know his reading but he believes he was over the limit
If he has been told he has not told me that is.

I'd ignore this lot tbh and ask somewhere else. All you get on here is arguments and insults. It was clear from your first post that you don't condone your brothers actions, yet people still feel a need to tell you that.

There will be doubts over whether your brother would have had better reactions to the incident unfolding if he were sober as to whether he was drunk. Maybe he would have noticed something odd about the car and slowed down in anticipation or maybe he would have done exactly the same. Nobody can say for sure either way.

If your brother is badly injured because of the actions of somebody else, of course he should be compensated for the injuries he received, whether he should have been on the road or not. The amount of that compensation may be reduced due to his drinking, but certainly shouldn't be because of him not having insurance or tax.

The main thing is that your brother is alive. Hopefully his injuries aren't too severe.

giraffe69

I'll ask you again, what was his blood alcohol reading?

Why do you want to know? Assuming he is over the limit and charged what difference will it make to any other consideration of the accident case? (Except, of course, in the minds of those who hear something of a case on a forum and then mete out justice according to their own ideas rather than that funny and imperfect thing: the law of the land.

Tothepoint.

Squirrel85 wrote: »

Sorry we don't yet know his reading but he believes he was over the limit
If he has been told he has not told me that is.

So he could be under the limit.

If he is over he'll need to be interviewed before the can charge as the police have not seen him driving.

Tothepoint.

giraffe69 wrote: »

Why do you want to know? Assuming he is over the limit and charged what difference will it make to any other consideration of the accident case? (Except, of course, in the minds of those who hear something of a case on a forum and then mete out justice according to their own ideas rather than that funny and imperfect thing: the law of the land.

To establish whether he's over the limit or not, as yet there's no evidence he was.