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

dannyrst

iammumtoone wrote: »

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.

I love this country sometimes, when disabled and old people aren't quick enough to get out of the way of a vehicle going through a red light and you can blame them for their own death.

Incredible!

Smartsaver7

I would imagine any insurance company claims department worth their salt will fight paying the full amount of compensation due to his drunkenness.
As to a drunk uninsured driver getting injured.... One word KARMA

Mercdriver

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.

Sorry but I find this rather too far fetched to believe. Got any references for it?

dacouch

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.

Was this a criminal court case, an inquest or a civil court case for compensation.

I suspect it was the first or second option and not the last as the first two have different levels of proof required to the last and the last would not normally be reported in a local paper

Joe_Horner

Tothepoint. wrote: »

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.

Depends a little on when "a few years ago" was. Death by careless driving hasn't been on the statute books all that long, and death by dangerous driving would need to meet the "significantly" below reasonable driving standard, which running a red light might not meet.

Both also carry lower (historically significantly lower) sentences to a manslaughter charge so the CPS might have decided to try for manslaughter.

As for alternative verdicts, they're only really available if the judge raises them (I believe a jury can in theory return its own alternative but not sure it's ever happened?). Judges are fallible and he may not have seen the need if he was anticipating a guilty verdict in any case.

Just trying to find a plausible reason for such an apparently absurd judgement, and I can't think of anything (bar jury tampering!) that doesn't involve an over charge in the first place.

Tothepoint.

dacouch wrote: »

Was this a criminal court case, an inquest or a civil court case for compensation.

I suspect it was the first or second option and not the last as the first two have different levels of proof required to the last and the last would not normally be reported in a local paper

All three have different levels of proof.

iammumtoone

Mercdriver wrote: »

Sorry but I find this rather too far fetched to believe. Got any references for it?

There will not be any as it was in the days before internet was widely used It was a very long time ago I guess around 25 years ago.

I can assure you I am not lying I remember it very well as I could not believe the outcome. I even remember the statement from the family that they were "disappointed with the outcome" . If it had been my husband/father I would have been livid, I vaguely know of the family and have heard from others that they have never got over it, I don't suppose they did

I don't want to de-rail the OPs thread I only brought it up as I thought it had some relevance as others are saying it is irrelevant he was drunk but the court might not take this view and may rule on how the average/sober person would have been perceived to act.

lincroft1710

Unfortunately the OP's brother has paid a high price for his folly, but fortunately it was not the ultimate price.

Mercdriver

iammumtoone wrote: »

There will not be any as it was in the days before internet was widely used It was a very long time ago I guess around 25 years ago.

I can assure you I am not lying I remember it very well as I could not believe the outcome. I even remember the statement from the family that they were "disappointed with the outcome" . If it had been my husband/father I would have been livid, I vaguely know of the family and have heard from others that they have never got over it, I don't suppose they did

I don't want to de-rail the OPs thread I only brought it up as I thought it had some relevance as others are saying it is irrelevant he was drunk but the court might not take this view and may rule on how the average/sober person would have been perceived to act.

I wasn't accusing you of lying. Nowhere in my post did I do so. I was just suggesting you were mistaken or misremembering.

iammumtoone

Mercdriver wrote: »

I wasn't accusing you of lying. Nowhere in my post did I do so..

You are correct, I apologise, just so used to this forum jumping on people you tend to think the worst

Mercdriver wrote: »

I was just suggesting you were mistaken or misremembering.

No I don't remember the finer details but the outcome I remember well as I just couldn't believe it myself. Like I said it was a very long time ago, I am sure if a similar case came up today with disabilities more recognised it would be different.