Father Suing Driver As "Secondary Victim" Of Car Crash

I was actually going to post one way and then after reading Rich L's posts he changed my mind.

I work in a Medico Legal department and it is standard practise that family will file claims against a Trust for causing the death of their loved one's.
Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose depending on the evidence bought forward.
I now can't see any difference why this Father can't sue the driver as long as it can be proved that the driver was negligent.
 
Westyfield2 said:
How is a pile of cash going to bring his daughter back?
Click to expand...

what a silly thing to say. no one is thinking that.

Deific said:
"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"
Click to expand...

but wont it help? i know a holiday (not talking about disney land here but perhaps a nice relaxing beach to forget normal life) would help or even having to move because seeing the daugthers room brings back too many memories. money can help them move on so it's fair to ask for it.
 
Justice was not done, other than killing the lad the only other way to make him pay for his crime would be to sue him. He has walked away bascially scott free.
 
IMO i'd side with the comments of 'money grabbing' myself. Theres a few things that don't sit right in the article at all, but this one sticks out to me:

Mr Jones has had psychiatric help since the tragedy - and defended his decision to sue to young driver.

He said: 'I'm bringing the action to bring closure and [because] justice has to be done for Louise.'
Click to expand...

Bring closure? Do Justice? Erm, what? Suing someone for a massive wad of cash brings no closure or justice what-so-ever.

If he wanted to do what he's saying he is then surely he'd be trying to get this sentance changed/increase/etc, not trying to get money out of him.
 
vonhelmet, he is suing in the tort of negligence for nervous shock/psychiatric injury losses. Unlike, e.g., trespass to the person which is actionable per se, for negligence you need to suffer harm: either property damage or personal injury usually. Psychiatric harm is just a species of personal injury and must be a recognised clinical condition, not just grief or anxiety. If you are a primary victim involved in the accident, you would get damages for psychiatric harm in addition to damages for bodily injury as part and parcel of your total claim.

The difference is for secondary victims not involved in the accident itself, as with the claimant here, who must overcome the hurdles in the Alcock case, i.e., be a parent/spouse, be sufficiently proximate and witness the accident with your own eyes. Then they can claim for psychiatric injuries.

sniffy said:
This would suggest he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
Click to expand...

It depends if he came upon the scene and saw the aftermath: McLoughlin v O'Brien.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the proximity aspect is going to be the main point of argument, the other circumstances pretty clearly qualify IMO.
 
I agree. It's not quite on all fours with McLoughlin, but if he saw the body at the hospital before it was properly cleaned up etc. he should have a fair chance despite being held back by the road block. I seem to recall cases where merely identifying the body at the morgue did not suffice though...

P.S. do you practise in California having qualified here originally?
 
if a driver crashes into you then you are allowed to claim for whiplash, i would find it a bit strange if he wasn't entitled to something for the loss of a child through the fault of anothers actions. surely having whiplash doesn't come close to the pain of losing a child and takes a hell of a lot longer to recover from (probably isn't even fully possible).
if he doesn't get anything then maybe there needs to be a change in the law.
 
steve-h said:
You were responsible for my daughter's death, now give me money.
Click to expand...

Thats what happens, in many other countries , a criminal charge is granted and then a restorative civil amount given also. Meaning the insurance or the person or their estate has to foot the bill in addition to serving their sentence.

Personally, i don't see why a criminal shouldn't repay a family after a crime in addition to their sentence.
 
Sorry for sounding like a gaping butt-hole, but to me it sounds like there's a good chance the girls weren't wearing a seatbelt... four of them in the back, all of which were 'thrown from the car'. Yet he survives, it would also seem without the need for any major treatment as that's not mentioned in the article.

Yes i know it's the drivers responsibility to ensure all passengers are securely fastened etc, but surely it could be argued that they took their lives into their own hands when they failed to 'buckle up' (assuming my assumptions are correct)?

Yes i agree the initial sentence for reckless driving was way too small i feel i must add. I just don't think you can sue for her death.

Again i stress this is all assumption based.
 
Last edited:
Streeteh said:
Sorry for sounding like a gaping butt-hole, but to me it sounds like there's a good chance the girls weren't wearing a seatbelt... four of them in the back, all of which were 'thrown from the car'. Yet he survives, it would also seem without the need for any major treatment as that's not mentioned in the article.

Yes i know it's the drivers responsibility to ensure all passengers are securely fastened etc, but surely it could be argued that they took their lives into their own hands when they failed to 'buckle up' (assuming my assumptions are correct)?

Yes i agree the initial sentence for reckless driving was way too small i feel i must add. I just don't think you can sue for her death if my assumption is correct.

Again i stress this is all assumption based.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it is only the driver's responsibility for passengers under 14 to be wearing a seatbelt. Passengers older than that are responsible for themselves and it is they who would be fined for not wearing one.
 
Dabbles said:
IIRC, it is only the driver's responsibility for passengers under 14 to be wearing a seatbelt. Passengers older than that are responsible for themselves and it is they who would be fined for not wearing one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

This could be why he was cleared of death by dangerous driving; if they failed to put on their seatbelts it's wouldn't be considered his fault in the eyes of the law if your clarification is correct.
 
Streeteh said:
Sorry for sounding like a gaping butt-hole, but to me it sounds like there's a good chance the girls weren't wearing a seatbelt... four of them in the back, all of which were 'thrown from the car'. Yet he survives, it would also seem without the need for any major treatment as that's not mentioned in the article.

Yes i know it's the drivers responsibility to ensure all passengers are securely fastened etc, but surely it could be argued that they took their lives into their own hands when they failed to 'buckle up' (assuming my assumptions are correct)?

Yes i agree the initial sentence for reckless driving was way too small i feel i must add. I just don't think you can sue for her death.

Again i stress this is all assumption based.
Click to expand...

He cannot sue for her death. He is suing for psychiatric injury, which is a type of personal injury. There is a difference. You cannot sue for the death of someone else or the grief it causes you. If you read the bottom of the article, it says he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, a recognised medical condition. The law has already erected great barriers to secondary victims recovering damages for psychiatric injury, arguably too great if you look at Alcock and all the brothers, sisters and best friends et al. who could not claim.

As for the seat belt argument, if it were the girl suing (had she not been killed) then not wearing a seatbelt could be contributory negligence and reduce the award proportionately. However, the father is claiming and only the claimant can be contributorily negligent, so the driver would have to argue that by not wearing a seatbelt it completely broke the chain of causation by a new intervening act. That isn't going to work here IMO - his driving no doubt will have been still a material cause of death. It could be why he was cleared of causing death though as the criminal standard of proof is much higher.

Edit: careless driving by itself is non-custodial, so he must have actually been convicted of causing death by careless driving (he was was driving less recklessly than a 'dangerous' driver). Causation had already been proven then, so the seatbelt argument is not going to get him off the hook.
 
Last edited:
But in turn you could argue that if my assumption is correct and he was wearing his seatbelt hence his survival and she was not, her decision to not wear said seatbelt was the moment that caused her death?

Ok he was driving like a moron, but because he buckled up he survived, she didn't she died.

I guess it's just down to which direction you argue, something i'm sure the lawyers are fine tuning as we speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom