Father Suing Driver As "Secondary Victim" Of Car Crash

beamer

beamer

beamer

Associate
Joined
4 Mar 2004
Posts
475
Location
Portsmouth
This is an interesting case.

I can fully understand what the father has been through.

I am assuming / hoping that given the driver was found guilty of reckless driving, his insurers won't meet the costs of any payout awarded to the father.

What happens with these sort of cases anyway ? When a damage is awarded, does the victim receive the full award from "the Crown" and "the Crown" then takes a chunk of the convicted person's wealth and income until the full award has been covered, or does the victim receive the money at the rate at which the convicted person pays it ? What if the convicted person has no wealth or income ? Does the victim receive nothing or is the money awarded from the "public purse" ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-torment-caused-teenage-daughters-death.html

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Craig-Ramshaw-70-1.law
 
beamer said:
I am assuming / hoping that given the driver was found guilty of reckless driving, his insurers won't meet the costs of any payout awarded to the father.
Click to expand...

I would imagine they will, as they should have liability under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.

Whether they then choose to recover the cost of meeting the claim from the driver is of course another matter.
 
I feel for the guy, he's been through a horrific ordeal but will money make all the pain go away or even help with his grief? I don't think so, so what is the point in sueing?
 
article20020250c7ae3a50.jpg



the wife looks a bit money grubbing.
 
Why would he need to?

In answer to the OP question, he is suing the driver presumably because the insurer would pay any claim. If he was suing the kid directly then it's the common situation with an impecunious defendant in that it's unlikely you'll receive any substantial amount of the damages awarded - however you would effectively hold a judgment debt on that person and could pursue normal debt recovery procedures or bankruptcy.

Slightly complicating matters is the existence of the CICA which will pay out damages to victims of violent crime, which is a payout by 'the Crown'. And I lulzed a bit when I saw the CICA was based in Glasgow. Apt.
 
Last edited:
Of course you can don't be daft, that's the entire principle of general damages vs special damages. It says what he is suing for in the first line of the article - his 'mental anguish'.

i.e. when someone is awarded 5 grand for slipping and breaking their leg it isn't because they lost out of 5k of cash through their injury or having to get taxis, a proportion will be a monetary value placed on the pain and suffering caused.

i.e. The JSB guidelines is a pretty commonly referenced source in PI cases when determining the appropriate award of damages.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit sick though on the parents part imo. Using their daughters death for financial gain is how I see it.

"My daughter died, so i want money from your insurer to make me feel better - a new telly will take some of the pain away"
 
he caused the death of their daughter due to careless driving it seems only right her family should be compensated by his insurers.
 
Rich_L said:
Why would he need to?

In answer to the OP question, he is suing the driver presumably because the insurer would pay any claim. If he was suing the kid directly then it's the common situation with an impecunious defendant in that it's unlikely you'll receive any substantial amount of the damages awarded - however you would effectively hold a judgment debt on that person and could pursue normal debt recovery procedures or bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

that sounds quite worrying.

Very much like,

"Not happy with the verdict of a criminal case? Sue the culprit and try to destroy their life in a second trial!"
 
If it's worrying, that's even more worrying as tort law has been in the UK legal system for, oh, since the Romans were here :p

Civil cases following criminal cases happens fairly frequently - that there is a different burden of proof being the main thing. Classic 'headline' case is the Van Hoogenstraten/Raja case, but I've seen a number of cases where, for example, someone punching another person, broke their nose and they actually required a load of reconstructive surgery etc. Puncher got done for assault, then was sued for civil damages. Or in the simplest (and probably most common) case, an RTA where there is insufficient evidence to convict for careless driving, but they are still 'at fault' under civil law and so the insurers pay out.

In July 2002, van Hoogstraten was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for the manslaughter of Mohammed Raja, after being found not guilty of murder: a jury at the Old Bailey decided that "although he wanted Mr Raja harmed, he had not wanted him murdered". This conviction was quashed in July 2004 by Judge Sir Stephen Mitchell who agreed that "there was no foundation for a manslaughter case." On 19 December 2005 the family of Raja, in a civil action against van Hoogstraten, were awarded £6 million by Mr Justice Lightman, after the court found that the balance of probabilities was "that the recruitment of the two thugs was for the purpose of murdering Mr Raja and not merely frightening or hurting him".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
He was given a two-year conditional discharge, banned from driving for two years and ordered to retake his test.
Click to expand...
WTF kill 4 people by driving like an idiot and get a two year conditional discharge.... wtf...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom