car crash

[[TW]Fox]

It makes no difference if the injured party is INSIDE or OUTSIDE The car.

I'm aware of that. I'm still allowed to be amazed by it without you putting your Legal hat on.

The massive amounts of money our insurance industry wastes on personal injury claims is just absolutely infuriating and we all pay for it. The downside of this is that peoples frustration often gets taken out on those few legitimate cases lost in a sea of people whigning about whiplash because they had a headache for 30 minutes and because a mate said they can get whippy compo and a medical professional cannot prove otherwise.

Sure this guy broke his arm which is regrettable and under ordinary circumstances I guess he probably wouldn't have got this sort of response but the fact he was in the guilty car at the time and it was his own wife driving just struck a chord with some of us regardless of the legal situation. If my girlfriend crashed her car with me in it the last thing i'd be thinking of right away was whether I can sue her* for compensation. He doesn't even know what his loss of earnings are - he hasn't had any yet as its a bank holiday weekend!

*Sure, her insurer handles it all but you know what I mean.

 

[Fr0dders]

I was in a car crash yesterday my mrs was driving it was her fault,
her and my kids haven't a mark on them thank god,I have ligament damage in my right foot and a broken wrist.

As we've never been in this situation before people keep telling me to claim on her insurance.

Would you??
would it be worse for us in regards to the cost of her car insurance?

any advice

cheers

Yes it most probably would put up your car insurance.

The muppets going "OMG WHIPPY COMPO CLAIM NOW" are completely missing the point that your wife was at fault so there is nobody else to claim from.

And thats not even getting into the moralities of the whippy compo mentality ...

 

[Pudney]

Caused by his own wife. It just seems so ridiculous regardless of how legal it might be.

Why? You can claim for the damage on your car if you cause the accident. You can claim for your own injuries, it's not that great a leap to include passengers!

 

[SpeedFreak]

I don't think anybody in the thread has missed the fact that the claim would be against his wife's insurer.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Caused by his own wife. It just seems so ridiculous regardless of how legal it might be.

Sigh....i am going to say it one last time.

The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant has no relevance.

Please get over that and accept it. It is not ridiculous, not at all. It is as normal as the NYC cabs are yellow and London cabs are black.

 

[Pudney]

Yes it most probably would put up your car insurance.

The muppets going "OMG WHIPPY COMPO CLAIM NOW" are completely missing the point that your wife was at fault so there is nobody else to claim from.

And thats not even getting into the moralities of the whippy compo mentality ...

Not a whippy claim. Just a broken wrist and lost earnings.

 

[Fr0dders]

Sigh....i am going to say it one last time.

The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant has no relevance.

Please get over that and accept it. It is not ridiculous, not at all. It is as normal as the NYC cabs are yellow and London cabs are black.

well not really

because one would assume they probably have a joint back account being husband + wife

Effectively making it such that he is claiming off himself ?

At least if he was claiming off a friend, it wouldn't be against his own insurance.

Granted people do this (claim off their own insurance) all the time with house insurance.

But people tend to think more clearly about the costs of claiming on house insurance, knowing it will go up next year if they do.

Not a whippy claim. Just a broken wrist and lost earnings.

Obviously, because its a broken wrist and not spinal damage due to whiplash. But the same OMG CLAIM NOW principle from the people he has talked to still seems to apply.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Sigh....i am going to say it one last time.

The relationship between the Claimant and Defendant has no relevance.

It's time for caps because for the first time in ages, somebody on the internet is actually frustrating me.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION. I AM AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION AND HIS ENTITLEMENT TO SUBMIT A CLAIM. I KNOW HOW IT WORKS AND I AM NOT STUPID.

Just because I understand how a process works doesn't mean I am not allowed to be infuriated and amazed by that process.]

I am aware that you must get the word defendent and claiment into as many threads as possible so we dont forget you do something or other in a solicitors office but at least make sure its needed first?

 

[SpeedFreak]

well not really

because one would assume they probably have a joint back account being husband + wife

Effectively making it such that he is claiming off himself ?

At least if he was claiming off a friend, it wouldn't be against his own insurance.

Granted people do this (claim off their own insurance) all the time with house insurance.

But people tend to think more clearly about the costs of claiming on house insurance, knowing it will go up next year if they do.




Obviously, because its a broken wrist and not spinal damage due to whiplash. But the same OMG CLAIM NOW principle from the people he has talked to still seems to apply.

He would claim of his/wife's insurance. It will not come directly out of her pocket even with inflated premiums. Assuming she has hit another vehicle her premium will rise anyhow so that argument is moot.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You are talking about the morality? About claiming on a legitimate injury?

What is immoral here? Perhaps I am "desensitise" from the whole thing because i do work in it. So I don't consider the morality of things like this as long as it is legit. Because frankly, adding morality into something like this, makes it messy. It is easily to detach yourself and apply the facts. Just the facts.

p.s. I use the word claimant and defendant to describe the parties. It is what it is. I am not even spewing case laws or statutes, you have mentioned about my "background" 3 times now before I even mention what i do at work. If someone else said the same thing you wouldn't even bring it up. What is your problem here?

 

[Fr0dders]

He would claim of his/wife's insurance. It will not come directly out of her pocket even with inflated premiums. Assuming she has hit another vehicle her premium will rise anyhow so that argument is moot.

thats a point

I hadn't considered that she may have run into another car and thus already facing a hefty claim against her insurance.

Carry on !

 

[[TW]Fox]

because i do work in it.

Really? Well why didn't you say so?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Really? Well why didn't you say so?

You have a problem with what I do, I know it. Right from your first reply.

Don't preach the law to me Raymond, because it's irrelevent to the point I was making, which was not a point of law but a point of 'Wow, your wife crashes and you run to the internet asking about compo'.

Get over it. Please. I beg you.

 

[Brian8bit]

Really? Well why didn't you say so?

Any need to be condescending?

 

[SpeedFreak]

thats a point

I hadn't considered that she may have run into another car and thus already facing a hefty claim against her insurance.

Carry on !

And on that concession I'll say good night

 

[[TW]Fox]

You have a problem with what I do, I know it. Right from your first reply.

I don't know what you do because you wouldn't explain last time you were asked, so try again.

What I find amusing, rather than have a problem with, is you never miss an opportunity to pop in with the legal speak in situations where the topic it hand isn't actually the legalities of it. The law is clear and nobody here can argue with what the law says. What we can do, however, is argue about what we personally feel is just, unjust or whatever.

Everyone here knows that legally speaking he is entitled to claim compensation. Nobody denies this.

 

[The_Abyss]

Back in the day one of my financial adviser colleagues (who was much longer in the tooth than I was) received a letter fro mthe FSA telling him that it was likely his endowment had been mis-sold to him and that he could claim for compensation.

The adviser in questions? Himself. He set it up.

A little more extreme than the example here but nevertheless relevant.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I don't know what you do because you wouldn't explain last time you were asked, so try again.

What I find amusing, rather than have a problem with, is you never miss an opportunity to pop in with the legal speak in situations where the topic it hand isn't actually the legalities of it. The law is clear and nobody here can argue with what the law says. What we can do, however, is argue about what we personally feel is just, unjust or whatever.

Everyone here knows that legally speaking he is entitled to claim compensation. Nobody denies this.

I never said it with authority, I first post was in reply to yours. It is you who came at me about "preaching about the law" and then having a digs at me because I use the word Claimant and Defendant.

As for

Everyone here knows that legally speaking he is entitled to claim compensation. Nobody denies this.

Let's see.

Let's start with yours, you seemed shocked that people do this.

You are going to claim compo innit from your wife?

Will the compo money turn time back and fix your wrist?

Then we have "no win no fee muppets"

Its your wife and i'm sure she didn't do it on purpose. If you feel the need then ring one of the no win no fee muppets that advertise on tv...

And then.

Wtf? Claim for compo (no matter how legit your injuries are) from your wife's insurance?

And followed by

In response to the OP, no get yourself fit and healthy and carry on.

But I am stepping out of this thread. I understand when you have a go at me for saying things I don't know much about (cars, finances etc), but this I know, yet you are having a go at me but all I talk about is the fact. Which part I said is wrong? I really have no idea why you are having a go at me.

Sorry Fox, I respect you, or at least used to.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Let's start with yours, you seemed shocked that people do this.

Because I am. I'm allowed to be shocked at anything I want. It's also the law that people can be jailed for speeding and I'm shocked at that as well.

I had a dig at the defendent/claimant stuff because you directed it at me after all I'd done was express suprise at his intended cause of action.

You said..

it is no relevance that the defendant is his wife or stranger in the event of a claim

Whereas my opinion was not from a legal perspective so the fact his there is no relevence who the defendant is absolutely nothing to do with my point at all. I find this irritating. Especially as you opened your reply with a quip about whether it was even worth the bother replying?

Then we have "no win no fee muppets"

None of the quotes there are from me. And none of them demonstrate that people dont know he can legally claim - they demonstrate that people feel he would be morally wrong to do so.

You were trying to argue that my opinion that its morally wrong is invalid because its legally correct. This is illogical and I found it hugely frustrating. You know very well that whats legal and whats moral are often polar opposites.

You are correct in that all you talk about here is fact but thats really half the problem. It's not a matter of fact its a matter of opinion. The facts are indisputable and not worth discussing in this thread - they wont change. We all know the legal fact here but we are discussing moral opinion instead. He's not asking us for the facts he's asking for opinion and what we'd do in the situation (and a quick query about whether it would increase the insurance cost) - look at his opening post.

Nowhere does he ask what his legal entitlement is.

 

[Sin_Chase]

I'm on the "claim what you actually lost but nothing else" side of things.

What are you being compensated for outside of your actual losses? The mental trauma? As if. That it takes you 30 extra seconds to wipe your arse? As if.

For anyone who thinks they should get compensation (read, payment beyond reimbursement of costs) - Grow a pair, seriously.

Welcome to the 21st century where everyone has a false sense of entitlement. It's pathetic quite frankly.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH I AM SO INCONVENIENCED I NEED £££££££££