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

Squirrel85

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

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.

Seeing as my brother is not here to hear your condemnation, I do have to wonder what your objective is in these posts, if not merely to make me feel worse at a stressful time. Your 'aim' can only be me, by proxy

iammumtoone

If this goes to court it can go either way, not regarding the tax/insurance but regarding him being over the limit.

There was a case in our local paper about someone who was killed on the road (pedestrian). He was walking over a zebra crossing when the lights were red. The cars had stopped but a motorbike ignored the red lights and ran him over. There were lots of witnesses there was no dispute what actually happened.

He was not drunk but did had a medical condition that made his reactions slower than a average person (much like someone who is drunk). The verdict was that the motorbike driver was not to blame as the person he killed if he had not been ill, the reasoning was he might have seen the bike and reacted quicker to save himself.

Personally I thought that decision was outrageous, he was on a zebra crossing. the lights were red. Slightly off topic but it does go to show that the fact the OP brothers was drunk will be taken into account. Of course if it comes back he was under the limit than it is different.

OP have you spoken to a no win no fee solicitor? I really think that will give you the best idea of an outcome even if you decide not to go with them, if they tell you they would take the case on it is very likely you will win.

Tothepoint.

iammumtoone wrote: »

If this goes to court it can go either way, not regarding the tax/insurance but regarding him being over the limit.

There was a case in our local paper about someone who was killed on the road (pedestrian). He was walking over a zebra crossing when the lights were red. The cars had stopped but a motorbike ignored the red lights and ran him over. There were lots of witnesses there was no dispute what actually happened.

He was not drunk but did had a medical condition that made his reactions slower than a average person (much like someone who is drunk). The verdict was that the motorbike driver was not to blame as the person he killed if he had not been ill, the reasoning was he might have seen the bike and reacted quicker to save himself.

Personally I thought that decision was outrageous, he was on a zebra crossing. the lights were red. Slightly off topic but it does go to show that the fact the OP brothers was drunk will be taken into account. Of course if it comes back he was under the limit than it is different.

OP have you spoken to a no win no fee solicitor? I really think that will give you the best idea of an outcome even if you decide not to go with them, if they tell you they would take the case on it is very likely you will win.

Zebra crossings don't have red lights, was there a junction prior to the crossing?

iammumtoone

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Zebra crossings don't have red lights, was there a junction prior to the crossing?

Wrong choice of words then. What are those crossings called that have lines across the road and are traffic light controlled where you press a button and wait for the lights to change. It was one of those, I know that as I saw the aftermath of the accident

rich13348

iammumtoone wrote: »

Wrong choice of words then. What are those crossings called that have lines across the road and are traffic light controlled where you press a button and wait for the lights to change. It was one of those, I know that as I saw the aftermath of the accident

Pelican crossing

iammumtoone

rich13348 wrote: »

Pelican crossing

Thank you, I didn't know that got my animals mixed up :rotfl:

Tothepoint.

iammumtoone wrote: »

Wrong choice of words then. What are those crossings called that have lines across the road and are traffic light controlled where you press a button and wait for the lights to change. It was one of those, I know that as I saw the aftermath of the accident

Still don't understand why he wasn't up for a death by charge.

iammumtoone

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Still don't understand why he wasn't up for a death by charge.

It was a long time ago I don't remember what the change was against him just that the outcome was not guilty as the decision was the pedestrian was to blame as his reactions were proven to be slower than what would be expected of the 'average' person.

The problem being (as the case of the OPs brother) is that nobody would know how the average person/sober person would have faired in that situation as that scenario did not occur. It could have been the same outcome or in fact the court could have been right and a person with quicker reactions might have survived.

Joe_Horner

Tothepoint. wrote: »

Still don't understand why he wasn't up for a death by charge.

Without details of the case I'd guess that the CPS decided to over-charge as manslaughter. That requires a pretty high likelihood that the negligent act would result in death, and the defence could argue that - for a normal person crossing the road and able to react quickly - that chance just wasn't high enough.

Tothepoint.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Without details of the case I'd guess that the CPS decided to over-charge as manslaughter. That requires a pretty high likelihood that the negligent act would result in death, and the defence could argue that - for a normal person crossing the road and able to react quickly - that chance just wasn't high enough.

It would require Gross negligence for a manslaughter charge and CPS rarely over charge. They like at least an 80% chance of winning before they'll authorise a charge.

Even if the did over charge at the very least a jury would be steered to finding the rider guilty of death by careless.