If the injury causes a definate loss of earnings and he's in no way at fault, in this case, the OP needs to just man up and get on with it and you need to stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
Minor Head On Crash, What To Do?
- Thread starter Hyper
- Start date
If the injury causes a definate loss of earnings and he's in no way at fault, in this case, the OP needs to just man up and get on with it and you need to stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
No, road laws/rules still apply so her being on the wrong side of the road and him having photos to back that up would put him in a strong position if it went to court. Although its a private car park it has no barrier or other means of stopping the general public getting in (wither they are supposed to or not) which means its classed as an extension of the public highway.
We had a very similar thing in 2007, one of our vans was turning into a Travis Perkins car park/yard from the road and some loon tried to leave on the wrong side of the road, the court decided he was at fault. The gates to the car park don't count as a measure to prevent unfettered access as they are open all the time during the day. An example of a car park which does prevent access would be a multi story with a barrier that lifts for each car or a company car park with a barrier/gate and a guard to grant/deny access.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nce-premiums-up-by-40-per-cent-in-a-year.html
It's people like you Raymond, who are causing massive hikings of prices. Due to whiplash compo and other such ********.
Hyper, sort it out side of the insurance, it'll keep your premiums down to a decent level.
The point at which the injury is significant and actually has an impact on anything else for some time. Not just him just deciding that he is a bit sore. If he was injured significantly in that crash then he must be made of glass.
There are two reasons why premiums are going up, the first is people deciding that they are injured when they are not (like here, and also people deliberately having accidents etc.) and also claim management companies and solicitors raking in the millions.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,818
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
That again, is your opinion. The law however, is more impartial to opinions. If he has no basis of a claim, his doctor will tell him he is fine and that will be that. His claim won't be successful.
I find it laughable that a lot of people here says "people like me". Put the shoe on the other foot, when you get into an car accident, and injured, come back and tell me you won't claim.
p.s. people like me, who was hit by a car as a pedestrian when I was 14, broken leg, in a cast for 10 weeks, with a scar to show for it. I didn't make a claim btw.
Last edited:
Yes, because nobody has ever had compensation when they aren't really injured, ever.
If I wasn't injured then I wouldn't claim, simple as that.
Okay, well done?
The fact that the guy has had a 10mpg bump and a slightly sore back, does not mean he should be claiming for whiplash or other such compensation. Please see the link I posted and you'll see why insurance prices are on the up.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,818
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I read it.
And are you a doctor? Did you examine the OP to the extent of his injuries? Can you say with absolute authority that he will not have any short or long term injury as a result of this accident?
I merely lay out the option.
The forum however decided oooooh, bad man, ambulance chaser!
But when I talk about the law, no one actually have any argument against that.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
I'd each walk away and sort your own car out. Sharing all costs equally could get messy.
And don't be silly, you are not injured.
The only other things I'd say is that she could have been a LOT further over, and you both should have been driving at crawling speed around that bend.
And don't be silly, you are not injured.
The only other things I'd say is that she could have been a LOT further over, and you both should have been driving at crawling speed around that bend.
If I go to the doctor and claim to have whiplash and/or a bit of lower back pain, I'd be interested to find out how he'd disprove it.
I quote from the OP:
"I felt okay at the time but have a bit of lower back and neck pain"
That's not the words of a guy who has serious injuries, or injuries worth seeking compensation over.
The law, as you state, is in black and white. That much is clear. However, the law doesn't take into consideration common sense. It's a car park bump between two older cars, which are worth 1000-1500. The damage is very slight and no true injuries (in terms of major or significant injuries) occured.
If both parties were to go through their insurance, they'd cost them selves money, you money, me money, everyone money. Due to pushing up claims with regards to injury compensation, claims for work, lawyers, accident groups etc.
Your advice on seeking out a lawyer and pursuing this further is an absolute joke, sorry Ray but you're completely wrong here as a number of posters have pointed out.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,818
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Exactly, I am taking a legal position, everyone else here is taking a cost cutting position from an inaurance payer. The views are completely different.
You might not agree with it my views, but it is not illegal, it is legit, and it is above board. It does not make it wrong.
I laid out the options, at the end of the day the OP is the one who knows how injured he is and whether to pursue his claim. Not me, not you. does calling me an ambulance chaser and practically lynching me for pointing out his options any help to him? and since when this forum is populated by orthopaedic surgeons, how do people know he is not injured from the accident? Have you done research into head on collisions at 10mph? As far as we know, the OP hasn't even seen a doctor yet.
Btw, what is the definition of "seriously injured". Do you need to be before you see a doctor?
You might not agree with it my views, but it is not illegal, it is legit, and it is above board. It does not make it wrong.
I laid out the options, at the end of the day the OP is the one who knows how injured he is and whether to pursue his claim. Not me, not you. does calling me an ambulance chaser and practically lynching me for pointing out his options any help to him? and since when this forum is populated by orthopaedic surgeons, how do people know he is not injured from the accident? Have you done research into head on collisions at 10mph? As far as we know, the OP hasn't even seen a doctor yet.
Btw, what is the definition of "seriously injured". Do you need to be before you see a doctor?
Last edited:
Because its impossible to injure yourself at 10mph..., if the OP is injured he should be claiming, simple as, he has already been sent home from work as he was in pain which means his boss thought he was unfit to work, are you saying he shouldn't be allowed compensation for missing work due to a non fault accident?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,818
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
btw, I'll quote myself from yesterday, which most of you missed and decided to pick on the other facts I stated, rather than my "opinion"
After being sent home for half a day due to it, he's still likely to get paid for it and is therefore not out of pocket.
If the OP comes back and says "my back is fine, back in work etc", will you compo sheep stop bleeting?
Of course, and also if he comes back and says otherwise I will refrain from rubbing it in your face
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
This is getting rather ridiculous now.
The issue Raymond is not the 'law', which you keep bleating about in broken English, but the appropriate course of action following a very minor incident. He has not just been pulled from a moderate smash. He's bumped his 1500 quid car into somebody elses 1500 quid car in a private carpark with no road markings. It's just one of those things.
Yes, well done, you work in law. Have a cookie. I know you are desperate to tell us but really you ought to stop ramming your work credibility into every post you make if you are not prepared to tell us in what capacity you work. You can't try to validate your posts with professional experience if you are not prepared to back that up. You are effectively saying 'Listen to me, I know because I work at XYZ but I wont tell you what I do so you must take my word for it'.
You go on about how opinion doesnt matter - I rather think it does, because thats all you'll ever get on an internet forum. Infact all you get from a lawyer is her or her opinion - ie, that lawyers interpretation of the law. Thats not fact either, which is why lawyers don't win every case they bring. Only a court decides what is fact in law. Constantly posting the factual procedure for a personal injury claim is of no real benefit to anyone.
I repeat - this is not a 3 car shunt on a main road. This is two cars having a bump.
What the OP really needs is practical advice on the best way to get himself back on the road with the least amount of hassle and the least amount of cost to him, not you bleating about personal injury claims in an accident which its highly unlikely would be ruled in either favours party.
IMHO the best course of action is that each party fixes his/her own vehicle, out of his/her own pocket, and gets on with life. I doubt the damage is even more than the excess would be on the insurance.
You can take the Raymond Lin SuperLawyer approach if you like but is it really worth the hassle for... what exactly? Because it hardly sounds like the stuff of 4 figure personal injury claims does it?
Buy some stuff of Ebay. Fix car. Get on with life. Approach blind corners with caution when turning into junctions in future. Live happily ever after. The end.
The issue Raymond is not the 'law', which you keep bleating about in broken English, but the appropriate course of action following a very minor incident. He has not just been pulled from a moderate smash. He's bumped his 1500 quid car into somebody elses 1500 quid car in a private carpark with no road markings. It's just one of those things.
Yes, well done, you work in law. Have a cookie. I know you are desperate to tell us but really you ought to stop ramming your work credibility into every post you make if you are not prepared to tell us in what capacity you work. You can't try to validate your posts with professional experience if you are not prepared to back that up. You are effectively saying 'Listen to me, I know because I work at XYZ but I wont tell you what I do so you must take my word for it'.
You go on about how opinion doesnt matter - I rather think it does, because thats all you'll ever get on an internet forum. Infact all you get from a lawyer is her or her opinion - ie, that lawyers interpretation of the law. Thats not fact either, which is why lawyers don't win every case they bring. Only a court decides what is fact in law. Constantly posting the factual procedure for a personal injury claim is of no real benefit to anyone.
I repeat - this is not a 3 car shunt on a main road. This is two cars having a bump.
What the OP really needs is practical advice on the best way to get himself back on the road with the least amount of hassle and the least amount of cost to him, not you bleating about personal injury claims in an accident which its highly unlikely would be ruled in either favours party.
IMHO the best course of action is that each party fixes his/her own vehicle, out of his/her own pocket, and gets on with life. I doubt the damage is even more than the excess would be on the insurance.
You can take the Raymond Lin SuperLawyer approach if you like but is it really worth the hassle for... what exactly? Because it hardly sounds like the stuff of 4 figure personal injury claims does it?
Buy some stuff of Ebay. Fix car. Get on with life. Approach blind corners with caution when turning into junctions in future. Live happily ever after. The end.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,716
Can't. Most people with neck pain post-rta don't even meet criteria for an C-spine xray. No way to see changes from `whiplash`. It's clinical findings based on what a person tells you on examination and no fractures being suspected or seen on x-ray.
Not gonna get into any legal or injury stuff... enough has been said on that already, but looking at the pictures... especially the last one, IMHO you are Both virtually in the middle of the car lane as it is a little narrow, so Both at fault, don't see why you should be claiming from her as you are Both responsible for driving irresponsibly on private property.