Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Last year I was witness to a crash. It was dark and raining hard, three lane unlit dual carriageway, one car had, all on its own, spun into the central barrier. The crash removed all the front lights and left the car, stationary, facing the wrong way in the outside lane. Some seconds/minutes later a taxi in the outside lane ploughed into the wreckage. From the Taxi damage it looked like he'd braked quite a lot but clearly not enough.

When we got to the first car's driver it was clear he hadn't been wearing his seatbelt for at least one of the crashes as his face had impacted the non-airbag steering wheel and made a mess of it.

The first car driver is suing the taxi driver for damages and I need to go to court for 2 days in October.

Will he win?

Actus Reus

2,308 posts

39 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Impossible to say I'd say - is there evidence that shows the cab was speeding for example?

7db

5,950 posts

114 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
I guess that's for the court to decide. If you are being called as a witness, then I'd probably not be posting speculatively on a forum, and be mindful of my obligations to the court.

As a witness you can receive some payment for loss of earnings.

DaveH23

1,245 posts

54 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
If you dont believe you will be of any use then inform the court before the hearing and they will make a decission as to if they need you or not.

Lurking Lawyer

3,758 posts

109 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
7db said:
As a witness you can receive some payment for loss of earnings.
I'm rather ashamed to say I don't know that answer definitively, but are you are sure about that?

I know you can claim a certain amount in respect of travel costs in criminal matters, if the CPS requires you to attend, but I'm not convinced that's right in relation to a civil matter - which this is, if it's a claim for damages.

In my experience, if you have to serve a witness summons (i.e. you're compelling the witness to attend at court), you are required to tender "conduct money" when you serve it, which from dim and distant memory is a sum equivalent to the cost of a asecond class rail fare to get to the court. There's no obligation to compensate for lost earnings.
Advertisement

Actus Reus

2,308 posts

39 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
^ I think that's right - I was offered travel costs only when I had to give evidence in a fraud trial last winter.

RtdRacer

1,274 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
That's okay. The OP doesn't really have a proper job anyway. :-)

LoonR1

18,821 posts

61 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
If what you say is said in court and any other witnesses statements tally then driver 1 has no chance.

However if you and any other witnesses choose not to turn up then who knows what the outcome will be.

If you believe insurance costs are too high and also in justice being done then you should attend.

Too many witnesses simply don't bother turning up to cases like this and rulings go in favour of the spurious claimant.

Your call but I know what I'd do.

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
RtdRacer said:
That's okay. The OP doesn't really have a proper job anyway. :-)
Git.

Have I overstepped the mark with what I've posted already? I am also being summonsed so I guess I'd better hope work will let me go and not make me take it as holiday.

I was the back seat passenger in a car in the middle lane as the taxi hit, I just heard a thump. Should I tell the initial crashees solicitor again that I think it's a waste me being there or go straight to the court?

LoonR1

18,821 posts

61 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Fish981 said:
Git.

Have I overstepped the mark with what I've posted already? I am also being summonsed so I guess I'd better hope work will let me go and not make me take it as holiday.

I was the back seat passenger in a car in the middle lane as the taxi hit, I just heard a thump. Should I tell the initial crashees solicitor again that I think it's a waste me being there or go straight to the court?
You've now jut completely changed your witness account from one of seeing it to one of supposition and guesswork. Maybe driver 1 has a case after all?

You should say what you said in your witness statement unless you believe that to be wrong. If you've been summonsed I'd also suggest that bunking off isn't a great idea. It isn't your call whether you will add value or not. The court has asked you to attend and they will decide on the value of your testimony.

Is it any wonder people despair of witnesses though you can't even produce a coherent story half am hour apart.

Breadvan72

18,110 posts

47 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
(1) No one is summonsed! The verb is summoned.

(2) It is not unlawful to discuss the case here. Your obligation to the court is to tell the truth. That doesn't mean you can't talk about what you saw, outside court, but, obviously, give evidence based on what you saw, not based on any theories posted here.

(3) No one here can tell who will win. We would need all the evidence. Leave deciding the case to the Judge.

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
LoonR1 said:
Fish981 said:
You've now jut completely changed your witness account from one of seeing it to one of supposition and guesswork. Maybe driver 1 has a case after all?
As strange as it may seem I spoke to the people in the front of the car who saw more than I did. Some of this conversation took place whilst we were in the 'fast' lane of the dual carriageway trying to stop even less observant drivers making the situation worse.

LoonR1 said:
You should say what you said in your witness statement unless you believe that to be wrong. If you've been summonsed I'd also suggest that bunking off isn't a great idea. It isn't your call whether you will add value or not. The court has asked you to attend and they will decide on the value of your testimony.
Bunking off? Was that actually suggested?

LoonR1 said:
Is it any wonder people despair of witnesses though you can't even produce a coherent story half am hour apart.
Excellent, just excellent.

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
(1) No one is summonsed! The verb is summoned.

(2) It is not unlawful to discuss the case here. Your obligation to the court is to tell the truth. That doesn't mean you can't talk about what you saw, outside court, but, obviously, give evidence based on what you saw, not based on any theories posted here.

(3) No one here can tell who will win. We would need all the evidence. Leave deciding the case to the Judge.
(1) Sorry

(2) Roger

(3) Not sure there's going to be much more evidence. Stationary, unlit car, dark, lots of rain, gets hit by another car.

Breadvan72

18,110 posts

47 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
How long was the driver still in his car before the second impact? Was he too injured by the first impact to get out? On balance, it sounds like the taxi driver was not to blame, unless the claimant can prove that the taxi driver was speeding, but, who knows? The Judge will look at the balance of probabilities.

LoonR1

18,821 posts

61 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
How long was the driver still in his car before the second impact? Was he too injured by the first impact to get out? On balance, it sounds like the taxi driver was not to blame, unless the claimant can prove that the taxi driver was speeding, but, who knows? The Judge will look at the balance of probabilities.
That was my point, apologis for appearing to prejudge the outcome, more based on my judgement of when I'd bother fighting litigation or just cough up.

Hooli

27,569 posts

84 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
How long was the driver still in his car before the second impact? Was he too injured by the first impact to get out? On balance, it sounds like the taxi driver was not to blame, unless the claimant can prove that the taxi driver was speeding, but, who knows? The Judge will look at the balance of probabilities.
Does the taxi need to have been speeding?

My understanding of the rules on the road is that if you can't stop in what you can see then your going too fast. I'd say hitting a stationary car because you can't stop comes within that.

herewego

6,582 posts

97 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
I wouldn't have thought you'd have to be speeding to carry some blame for hitting a stationary car. You're supposed to look where you're going.

Breadvan72

18,110 posts

47 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
A stationary unlit car, at night.

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
How long was the driver still in his car before the second impact? Was he too injured by the first impact to get out? On balance, it sounds like the taxi driver was not to blame, unless the claimant can prove that the taxi driver was speeding, but, who knows? The Judge will look at the balance of probabilities.
Given the volume of traffic he was probably in the car about 30 seconds before the second impact. When he got his injuries are probably the most open to question, first or second impact? And did he take his seatbelt off inbetween the impacts? None of those questions will be helped at all by my statement. Taxi wasn't speeding.

Fish981

Original Poster:

858 posts

69 months

[news] 
Thursday 4th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
A stationary unlit car, at night.
Pouring rain, no streetlighting at all, facing the wrong way so no reflectors either.

My driver was in the middle lane and only saw the car as we went past.

2 3
Reply to Topic