car crash

Raymond Lin said:
Sigh, is there a point replying to that?

1 - it is no relevance that the defendant is his wife or stranger in the event of a claim. If you think saving a few hundred pounds on premiums is going to be worth all the physiotherapy costs, prescription costs, potential loss of earnings and then on top of that, the personal injury claim which I may add, is legitimate here, it's not some fake whiplash claim that can't be detected in a scan.

2 - turn back time? On that basis, why have the system in place at all? Why not even scrap the criminal system too. That guy murdered someone's wife, let him go you know, she's dead no matter what you do to him.

We pay for insurance for a reason. This is a legit reason to use it. Not use it because of some high horse moral value is just erm, illogical.
Click to expand...

Raymond has a fair point here.
 
The_Abyss said:
There's no claim being made from an individual. It is insurance.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the claim is made against the individual and if they have cover then the insurance pays out. I know car insurance is mandatory in this case, but the point still exists.
 
[TW]Fox;19944980 said:
He would have if we were discussing whether it was legal to claim against your wife. His answer was the perfect reply to a post saying 'You can't claim against your wife'. But there was no such post..
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;19941475 said:
You are going to claim compo innit from your wife?

Will the compo money turn time back and fix your wrist?
Click to expand...

It was a reply to that post if I am not mistaken, and answered your points imho.

I understand your hatred of claim culture, but sometimes you have to look and see that a valid claim is what insurance is there for. This bears no resemblence to the manufactured crashes and fake claims that are plaguing the industry.
 
[TW]Fox;19944980 said:
He would have if we were discussing whether it was legal to claim against your wife. His answer was the perfect reply to a post saying 'You can't claim against your wife'. But there was no such post..
Click to expand...

Yeah but your initial reaction was very arrogant hence his essay reply and a nice little bit of bickering from you both! :D
 
Op do what you want and can, you don't answer to people on here and you don't have to update the thread.

I do agree with the fact that there are plenty of people in this country that take the mick with "whimpy compo mate", but do you honestly believe that chastising someone on here with some pretty obvious injuries will suddenly change the whole "compo" culture and make everything hunky dory!

Take a step back from the keyboard, make a cuppa, watch a film, see some friends, do something fun, it's a bank holiday after all. Right, I'm off to get some more trifle.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear your wife and kids are ok and unharmed (Most important bit)

A broken wrist and torn ligaments are serious injuries, the accident was not your fault and you have suffered as a result.

You need to speak to an injury solicitor and put a claim in against your wife for the accident.

Whilst it can't turn the clock back, any financial losses arisen from this accident will be covered.
 
Well this is an interesting argument. As for weather you should or not, I can't tell you that, nor can anyone else here.

But I would say that if I had been injured in an accident and my wife, parent, sister or another very close family member was driving and I was in the car I honestly feel I would struggle to reconcile the idea of claiming from their insurance ...i.e. in a round about sort of way suing them ...with my own idea of what is right and wrong. I think we all know the law allows people to sue others for compensation when they have been hurt due to another's actions ....I do feel that the system is totally out of control now though, the idea behind it is quite good I think ...but in practice it is badly abused. Also, the idea of fault isn't quite so black and white to me, did your wife hurt you on purpose? ...I guess she did not, thus it was an accident, so forgive and forget. There may not be a difference in law between a family member and a stranger when it comes to this ...to me there is and probably to a lot of other people, indeed there is a difference if they are my friend even. Accidents happen, they always have and always will, but I do not believe that financial compensation should be expected.

Of course the law does allow for it and I can understand why it might seem like a good idea to use it. Would your wife or other family members see you a little differently if you did? ...would you see yourself differently? ...these are not questions that the law can address but are very valid in my personal opinion.

Quite frankly I think it's a rather complicated situation ...even if the law likes to make it seem simple (imagine that).
 
Moeks said:
Well this is an interesting argument. As for weather you should or not, I can't tell you that, nor can anyone else here.

But I would say that if I had been injured in an accident and my wife, parent, sister or another very close family member was driving and I was in the car I honestly feel I would struggle to reconcile the idea of claiming from their insurance ...i.e. in a round about sort of way suing them ...with my own idea of what is right and wrong. I think we all know the law allows people to sue others for compensation when they have been hurt due to another's actions ....I do feel that the system is totally out of control now though, the idea behind it is quite good I think ...but in practice it is badly abused. Also, the idea of fault isn't quite so black and white to me, did your wife hurt you on purpose? ...I guess she did not, thus it was an accident, so forgive and forget. There may not be a difference in law between a family member and a stranger when it comes to this ...to me there is and probably to a lot of other people, indeed there is a difference if they are my friend even. Accidents happen, they always have and always will, but I do not believe that financial compensation should be expected.

Of course the law does allow for it and I can understand why it might seem like a good idea to use it. Would your wife or other family members see you a little differently if you did? ...would you see yourself differently? ...these are not questions that the law can address but are very valid in my personal opinion.

Quite frankly I think it's a rather complicated situation ...even if the law likes to make it seem simple (imagine that).
Click to expand...

So you would rather that your family fall on financial hardship due to lack of income than to claim against insurance that is paid for for this very purpose?

You're not attacking her personally, and it's not about "revenge" or "punishing her" or whatever, which is what a lot of the posters here seem to feel; looking at it in a purely logical and practical way leaves only one appropriate course of action - if the injury is going to cost you (loss of earnings/medical bills/etc) then claim for it.

Just out of curiosity, would people feel different if she had accidentally driven into the OP's home when parking in the driveway and caused major structural damage to it?
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
So you would rather that your family fall on financial hardship due to lack of income than to claim against insurance that is paid for for this very purpose?

You're not attacking her personally, and it's not about "revenge" or "punishing her" or whatever, which is what a lot of the posters here seem to feel; looking at it in a purely logical and practical way leaves only one appropriate course of action - if the injury is going to cost you (loss of earnings/medical bills/etc) then claim for it.

Just out of curiosity, would people feel different if she had accidentally driven into the OP's home when parking in the driveway and caused major structural damage to it?
Click to expand...

But we aren't talking about a house or a car, I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the insurance is there to pay for damages to the car or a house etc. It's about people.

I understand what you are saying however this is exactly why I said it's complicated. Because everything you said was a perfectly valid consideration.

But the fact is, a lot of people will not look at the situation as only a series of numbers and facts. I do have the ability to do that of course ...but I don't necessarily agree with the system such that it is. Not that this should change anyone else's point of view, it does influence my own of course.

I also don't see any issue with meeting the costs of the accident, including lost earnings of course, but it seems to me that some people seem to go beyond that, they expect a monetary payment purely for 'inconvenience' an amount of money that someone decides is enough to make the whole ordeal 'ok' ...this goes beyond just replacing or fixing what was broken and meeting all the necessary costs. And this is where the line needs to be drawn in my opinion.

I did once, over 10 years ago cause damage to the front of my mother's house when preparing to pull off the drive (I was learning to drive at the time, in my grandfather's car), my first mistake was putting the car in 1st rather than reverse gear, as the car surged forward I realised what I had done but was too inexperienced to immediately correct the mistake as I panicked ...thus I caved the wall under one of the front windows in. It wasn't exactly major structural damage but it was bad enough considering I did it from a standing start about 4 feet away. Anyway I paid for the damage out of my own pocket, it was my fault and I accepted responsibility for it. I know this is not the same situation at all, but I would not have resorted to insurance unless I felt it was necessary. Which incidentally is part of my point, does the op feel that it is necessary? ...does his wife concur ? ...because too many people do make too many unnecessary claims ...and when family is involved that seems rather ...uncalled for if it isn't necessary.

The whole reason I said at the end of my post that it was a rather complicated situation is because of all of the considerations you mention ...and more. I can argue with myself about it even, I could justify either viewpoint as being perfectly acceptable to myself. But, as I said, the law makes it seem more simple than I feel that it really is ...which is exactly what you have done too.
 
Last edited:
Maz said:
Glad to hear your wife and kids are ok and unharmed (Most important bit)

A broken wrist and torn ligaments are serious injuries, the accident was not your fault and you have suffered as a result.

You need to speak to an injury solicitor and put a claim in against your wife for the accident.

Whilst it can't turn the clock back, any financial losses arisen from this accident will be covered.
Click to expand...

This, there is a reason we have insurance folks, is to be insured for things like this with legitimate claims, doesn't matter if it's his wife or not,
the op claiming from her insurance for the rights reason is NOT going to make her premium any higher than it's going to be after she has claimed or any third parties have claimed.
 
Locky said:
the op claiming from her insurance for the rights reason is NOT going to make her premium any higher than it's going to be after she has claimed or any third parties have claimed.
Click to expand...

Then why do insurance companies ask 'was anybody injured?' and 'what was the total cost of the claim?'?
 
Dabbles said:
Then why do insurance companies ask 'was anybody injured?' and 'what was the total cost of the claim?'?
Click to expand...

They need place a "reserve" for each claim, it is a number they set aside to pay out + legal expenses.

They also have an algorithm that after you puts in all the variables, give you a number ($$$) of how much the claim is worth.

Therefore, they need as much information as they can so they can value it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
They need place a "reserve" for each claim, it is a number they set aside to pay out + legal expenses.

They also have a super computer that after you puts in all the variables, give you a number ($$$) of how much the claim is worth.

Therefore, they need as much information as they can so they can value it.
Click to expand...

He's talking about when you take out a policy after a claim is settled I think.
 
Moeks said:
But we aren't talking about a house or a car, I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the insurance is there to pay for damages to the car or a house etc. It's about people.

I understand what you are saying however this is exactly why I said it's complicated. Because everything you said was a perfectly valid consideration.

But the fact is, a lot of people will not look at the situation as only a series of numbers and facts. I do have the ability to do that of course ...but I don't necessarily agree with the system such that it is. Not that this should change anyone else's point of view, it does influence my own of course.

I did once, over 10 years ago cause damage to the front of my mother's house when preparing to pull off the drive (I was learning to drive at the time, in my grandfather's car), my first mistake was putting the car in 1st rather than reverse gear, as the car surged forward I realised what I had done but was too inexperienced to immediately correct the mistake as I panicked ...thus I caved the wall under one of the front windows in. It wasn't exactly major structural damage but it was bad enough considering I did it from a standing start about 4 feet away. Anyway I paid for the damage out of my own pocket, it was my fault and I accepted responsibility for it. I know this is not the same situation at all, but I would not have resorted to insurance unless I felt it was necessary. Which incidentally is part of my point, does the op feel that it is necessary? ...does his wife concur ? ...because too many people do make too many unnecessary claims ...and when family is involved that seems rather ...uncalled for if it isn't necessary.

The whole reason I said at the end of my post that it was a rather complicated situation is because of all of the considerations you mention ...and more. I can argue with myself about it even, I could justify either viewpoint as being perfectly acceptable to myself. But, as I said, the law makes it seem more simple than I feel that it really is ...which is exactly what you have done too.
Click to expand...

If you hadn't been able to afford the repairs at the time then what would you have done?

I'm either very fortunate or very unfortunate in that I tend to think things like this through very logically, in this situation my thought process would be pretty much:

Is this injury going to cost me money? Yes (The OP has already said he doesn't get sick pay).

Will I/we end up paying more through increased premiums than this injury will cost me? (I don't know the answer to that, depends on many factors)

If not working for 3-4 weeks going to cost more than increased premiums would then of course I'm going to claim - that's why I pay for insurance, it
would be like paying for accidental damage cover for a mobile phone, dropping it and then not claiming because it's your own fault you dropped it.

If the OP can afford to take the hit of a month's wages, and chooses to do so out of principle, then that's up to him, but the logical path would be to weigh up the costs of each choice and base the decision on that.
 
Haggisman said:
If you hadn't been able to afford the repairs at the time then what would you have done?

I'm either very fortunate or very unfortunate in that I tend to think things like this through very logically, in this situation my thought process would be pretty much:.
Click to expand...

Then I would have been in necessary part of what I was saying.

Logical is good, I like to think that I am fairly logical in most things, but I do still think the situation is more complex than logic generally allows for, after all the chap's wife is the 'guilty' party in this. And what he chooses to do could have consequences that logic doesn't allow for, she is a women after all.
 
I have to say I find the number of people agreeing with the "grow a pair" comments to be astounding.

If I was going about my daily life and was involved in an accident through no fault of my own that involved broken bones I would want to be compensated. Why not? You will have caused me pain and suffering, you will have changed the way I lead my life for a time and restricted both my enjoyment and satisfaction for everyday living.

In this particular case its a broken wrist and ligament damage in the foot, but you say its okay to ignore that and just what, put it down to experience?

Do you have the same opinion if lets say its a broken leg meaning crutches, no driving, increased travel times to work and a dead social life awaiting healing?

What about 2 broken legs, bed ridden for the healing time, care by family members during recovery?

Are you saying that as long as recovery is total it doesn't matter how long the victim is laid up, how much pain and discomfort he goes through, how much his life is ruined as long as its only only temporary?

If you are still saying the victim should only claim for financial loss then I thank god that the limit of your social responsibility is forum warrioring, I hate to think of everyday life where you have a hand in decision making.

Maybe its because I'm getting older but I start to see the importance of every year, every holiday, every weekend and every day of my life. You cannot get these back and there are a finite number of them. You never know when the last one is coming. If someone takes away from me things I enjoy doing through an accident where they are insured then they damn well will pay for it so I can use that compensation to do things to "catch up" with life once I'm recovered.

This is not a notional injury or whiplash we are debating in this thread, its broken bones. It involves financial loss and a list of things this person cannot do until he has healed.

If you think the moral thing to do is suck it up then you need a reality check. I suggest in turn you grow a pair and stand up for your own right to lead a life where someone breaking your bones and affecting your life is not "okay".

To the OP, go ahead and claim. You cant drive now (assuming you could before), you cant even pick up or play with your children normally and everyday tasks will be difficult or impossible with only one working wrist. Insurance is there to cover the financial cost of these injuries, and the emotional cost and inconvenience to life due to these injuries. Use it.
 
There is no way I would claim on a family members insurance unless it caused me a life changing injuries. It is almost like saying they were driving recklessly or without due care and attention.

Plus the insurance company is likely to investigate it to the hilt.

Your wife is going to have to declare that for years, how does she feel about it. I reckon she is probably sorry enough without having to be reminded of it every time she renews her insurance.

I suppose if you really can't survive financially there maybe no other way but that is a tough one. I was in an accident with my ex-wife whilst she was driving and crushed my foot breaking it in 3 places. I never claimed as she more than repaid me by taking care of me during my recovery.
 
There is already a claim I assume as the wife crashed the car, the OP was just a passenger in the car causing the accident. I don't see what there is to investigate?

His wife will be declaring the accident for years anyway due to car damage, what difference does it make if it includes his compensation for injury?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom