30mph side on into a car
Discussion
Tribal Chestnut said:
What sort of tit f**king legal system do we have if the 'opinion' of some one carries such weight? A s**t one, obviously.
If I was found at fault based on some toad's opinion I'd be absolutely furious.
If I was found at fault based on some toad's opinion I'd be absolutely furious.
Tribal Chestnut said:
I would expect the legal professionals to ascertain what the witness sees as the facts of the incident, & use that in their case and judgement, not some half-arsed opinion.
What a steaming great bowl of sh*te.
Christ, you're an angry one. I'm sure you'd be fine with it, if the shoe were on the other foot though.What a steaming great bowl of sh*te.
I think that's a 50:50.
He shouldn't have pulled out if he couldn't see whether the road was clear, but you should have been more careful filtering past a junction where there is a possibility of somebody pulling out (especially as you state in point 5 above that you saw him approaching the junction so you should have anticipated him coming through).
He shouldn't have pulled out if he couldn't see whether the road was clear, but you should have been more careful filtering past a junction where there is a possibility of somebody pulling out (especially as you state in point 5 above that you saw him approaching the junction so you should have anticipated him coming through).
Tribal Chestnut said:
LoonR1 said:
Christ, you're an angry one. I'm sure you'd be fine with it, if the shoe were on the other foot though.
Regardless, that doesn't make it 'right'.An independent witness who has nothing to gain from one side or the other winning is what we currently have. The witness can and will be quizzed by both sides legal team. Other than that you have the biased views of both sides and little else.
What's your proposed new approach?
LoonR1 said:
So what would "make it right"?
An independent witness who has nothing to gain from one side or the other winning is what we currently have. The witness can and will be quizzed by both sides legal team. Other than that you have the biased views of both sides and little else.
What's your proposed new approach?
I simply do not think that the 'opinion' of the witness should have any bearing on the outcome. What they saw, yes, but their opinion? No.An independent witness who has nothing to gain from one side or the other winning is what we currently have. The witness can and will be quizzed by both sides legal team. Other than that you have the biased views of both sides and little else.
What's your proposed new approach?
Tribal Chestnut said:
I simply do not think that the 'opinion' of the witness should have any bearing on the outcome. What they saw, yes, but their opinion? No.
And the opinions of either driver / rider? Are you dismissing them too? If so how could any case be brought to court as that it what the process is founded upon. LoonR1 said:
And the opinions of either driver / rider? Are you dismissing them too? If so how could any case be brought to court as that it what the process is founded upon.
Seems like I've misunderstood the legal process then. I always thought the concern was for the facts, not the opinion of someone unqualified and potentially biased.Tribal Chestnut said:
Seems like I've misunderstood the legal process then. I always thought the concern was for the facts, not the opinion of someone unqualified and potentially biased.
Indeed it is, but as a Court has to find out which "fact" is true and which isn't then every case is founded on opinion until a court reaches its decision, at that point it becomes fact, until then it is conjecture. How is an independent witness biased? Surely the bias is in those who stand to lose or gain based on the outcome not someone who merely observed something g that has no direct bearing on them financially, or otherwise. 
Today was a good day. Found 100% not at fault. Best result I could ask for.
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
rossonza said:
Today was a good day. Found 100% not at fault. Best result I could ask for.
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
Good news.Nels0n said:
Good! That must be a relief.
So much for the 'expert opinion' of the barrack room lawyers on here.
If that's aimed at me then a couple of points. So much for the 'expert opinion' of the barrack room lawyers on here.
1. I'm not a lawyer, barrack room, or court. I'm an insurance claims bod.
2, What sort of court hears evidence when the claimant doesn't turn up?
3. What sort of "judge" then has a chat with the defendant and offers an opinion as suggested below?
4. What sort of judge makes a decision before anyone has had a chance to put their case forward?
rossonza said:
Today was a good day. Found 100% not at fault. Best result I could ask for.
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
It took 4 adjournments and a 5th adjournment request before the court said no to any more.
The claimant and his witness and his passenger failed to turn up to court.
However the judge told me that even if they turned up he believed my defense. And the claimant and witness' statements did not hold water.
Thanks for any input
Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 20th September 09:47
As I tell any number of our policyholders who don't believe they've done anything wrong, but wont go to Court to defend a matter because "they can't be bothered", "Can't get a day off work! or any of the other excuses - Court is like a football match. If you don't turn up, the other side win by default.
However, an insurer won't take the risk that a claimant may or may not turn up at Court and will try to settle a claim long before Court, on thebest possible terms.
The OP was overtaking, at a junction, contrary to the Highway Code. (s162? I haven't looked it up) The driver has a duty of care to ensure it's safe to pull out. Neither of you acted on what you could have (or should have) seen. To a point, both of you were in the wrong and this probably had 50/50 written all over it from the start. Why the claimants solicitor allowed it to get to Court, with a claimant who wouldn't turn up,mystifies me. The claimant has not only lost his case but someones liable for the costs, even if it's small track, and only Court fees and some minimal payment, and someone authorised the legal bills to mount for the claimant.
The trouble with our court system in RTA matters,is that say you have someone, in a car, with a nil (or low) excess and protected bonus and they collide with a biker, or even another car, and that other driver is talked into making a whiplash claim, and has a hire claim, then you have two claimants, who may bear equal responsibility, but on one side have lawyers pushing up the bills and a motivated claimant wanting his dodgy whiplash payment, and another claimant with no losses. The claimant with no losses won't want to go to Court just to help the insurer, when there's nothing in it for them. Accordingly the dodgy whiplash scammer gets 100%.
However, an insurer won't take the risk that a claimant may or may not turn up at Court and will try to settle a claim long before Court, on thebest possible terms.
The OP was overtaking, at a junction, contrary to the Highway Code. (s162? I haven't looked it up) The driver has a duty of care to ensure it's safe to pull out. Neither of you acted on what you could have (or should have) seen. To a point, both of you were in the wrong and this probably had 50/50 written all over it from the start. Why the claimants solicitor allowed it to get to Court, with a claimant who wouldn't turn up,mystifies me. The claimant has not only lost his case but someones liable for the costs, even if it's small track, and only Court fees and some minimal payment, and someone authorised the legal bills to mount for the claimant.
The trouble with our court system in RTA matters,is that say you have someone, in a car, with a nil (or low) excess and protected bonus and they collide with a biker, or even another car, and that other driver is talked into making a whiplash claim, and has a hire claim, then you have two claimants, who may bear equal responsibility, but on one side have lawyers pushing up the bills and a motivated claimant wanting his dodgy whiplash payment, and another claimant with no losses. The claimant with no losses won't want to go to Court just to help the insurer, when there's nothing in it for them. Accordingly the dodgy whiplash scammer gets 100%.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff