Personal Injury Claim - CFA: what to look out for?
Discussion
A close family member recently suffered a trip/fall in a well known supermarket, slipping on some cardboard packaging lying in an aisle. They suffered a fairly bad injury necessitating recovery by ambulance and a night in hospital including treatment under general anesthetic. It seems likely the injury will incapacitate them to a degree for quite some time.
At my suggestion they have inquired of a solicitor with an apparent good track record in such matters about a claim for personal injury compensation. Solicitors have duly responded offering to represent them under a CFA, and recommending ATE insurance to cover defence costs in the 'unlikely' event of losing the claim.
None of us are clued up on this kind of action so I'd be very grateful for any insights, advice, or pitfalls to look out for before they go ahead and sign up with the lawyers. They are far from well off and cannot afford to be exposed to any nasty or even mildly unpleasant financial surprises.
Many thanks
At my suggestion they have inquired of a solicitor with an apparent good track record in such matters about a claim for personal injury compensation. Solicitors have duly responded offering to represent them under a CFA, and recommending ATE insurance to cover defence costs in the 'unlikely' event of losing the claim.
None of us are clued up on this kind of action so I'd be very grateful for any insights, advice, or pitfalls to look out for before they go ahead and sign up with the lawyers. They are far from well off and cannot afford to be exposed to any nasty or even mildly unpleasant financial surprises.
Many thanks
So the thing with a CFA is that the solicitors always want paying. Nowt for free these days! Who would pay for the insurance policy on the potential loss?
If done correctly, it shouldn't cost you any more than potentially the cost of the insurance poicy if there's a loss. Obviously, if you win, then you'd recover some cash, less a share to the land sharks.
If done correctly, it shouldn't cost you any more than potentially the cost of the insurance poicy if there's a loss. Obviously, if you win, then you'd recover some cash, less a share to the land sharks.
Cyberprog said:
Who would pay for the insurance policy on the potential loss?
Yes thanks that's one question I've sent them off with already. I have just read one solicitors website that states they pick up the tab for the ATE policy in the event of loss, but I can't find anything to that effect in my relative's paperwork so far.The one thing they have to understand...the ATE will only pay out if they cooperate all the way with the solicitor's attempts to fight the case and lose. If it has to go to court, and your relative backs out, then the ATE won't pay and they will be liable for the costs. So they must be prepared to go to court if required.
Cyberprog said:
So the thing with a CFA is that the solicitors always want paying. Nowt for free these days! Who would pay for the insurance policy on the potential loss?
Premium tends to be covered by the insurance itself, so only becomes payable by the client in the event of a successful claim. The policy is also usually in respect of the opponent’s costs only: most CFAs backed by ATE Insurance do result in the Claimant’s Solicitors not being paid in the event of an unsuccessful claim. But the devil is in the detail and would of course have to be checked.
minimoog said:
A close family member recently suffered a trip/fall in a well known supermarket, slipping on some cardboard packaging lying in an aisle.
Just out of interest were the supermarket negligent or was it one of those ashole customers who have habit of dropping stuff and fooooking off without telling anyone ?minimoog said:
A close family member recently suffered a trip/fall in a well known supermarket, slipping on some cardboard packaging lying in an aisle. They suffered a fairly bad injury necessitating recovery by ambulance and a night in hospital including treatment under general anesthetic. It seems likely the injury will incapacitate them to a degree for quite some time.
Was the cardboard packaging lying in camouflage in the aisle or was it in full view - was it really negligence on behalf of the supermarket or just carelessness on behalf of the injured party. Seems to me that common sense prevails although appreciate not that common!!Lot of ambulance chasers to help!!
Remember that a no win no fee solicitor will only take a claim on if they believe thy at you have a better than 50% chance of successfully making a recovery.
Also, just because the cardboard was on the floor, it doesn’t mean you will successfully prove negligence. Most supermarkets, Tesco especially, will have a regular system of inspection of their premises to ensure that there are no defects or obstructions on the shop floor.
Also, just because the cardboard was on the floor, it doesn’t mean you will successfully prove negligence. Most supermarkets, Tesco especially, will have a regular system of inspection of their premises to ensure that there are no defects or obstructions on the shop floor.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CarbonV12V said:
Was the cardboard packaging lying in camouflage in the aisle or was it in full view - was it really negligence on behalf of the supermarket or just carelessness on behalf of the injured party.
Well that's why we have courts. To make decisions like that. Slightly OT
I'm wondering if the injured party wore glasses or visited an opticians recently ? Maybe that's another claim to be pursued?
KungFuPanda said:
Remember that a no win no fee solicitor will only take a claim on if they believe thy at you have a better than 50% chance of successfully making a recovery.
Also, just because the cardboard was on the floor, it doesn’t mean you will successfully prove negligence. Most supermarkets, Tesco especially, will have a regular system of inspection of their premises to ensure that there are no defects or obstructions on the shop floor.
100% this.Also, just because the cardboard was on the floor, it doesn’t mean you will successfully prove negligence. Most supermarkets, Tesco especially, will have a regular system of inspection of their premises to ensure that there are no defects or obstructions on the shop floor.
I defend these types of claims on behalf of insurers. I would bet they'll have a very good cleaning and inspection regime and possibly CCTV so they can identify how long the cardboard was lying there.
As an example, if they can show they carry out regular inspections at say 30 minute intervals (or perhaps even 1 hour intervals) then the claim may be doomed to fail, provided the supermarket can get all their information in order and have decent witnesses to verify those inspections.
Even if your relative does succeed, I would expect a hefty reduction for contributory negligence.
Similar thing happened to a friend of mine in one of the big supermarkets. You'd think a clear cut case but they used their super aggressive solicitors to go after her even trying to catch her out filming her doing things her injury meant she couldn't. They'd follow her filming from a car, I saw footage she'd been sent where she came to visit me with her kids - complete bully boy tactics.
Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
solo2 said:
Similar thing happened to a friend of mine in one of the big supermarkets. You'd think a clear cut case but they used their super aggressive solicitors to go after her even trying to catch her out filming her doing things her injury meant she couldn't. They'd follow her filming from a car, I saw footage she'd been sent where she came to visit me with her kids - complete bully boy tactics.
Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
Bully boy tactics? I don’t think so. Defendant solicitors will only go to the cost of hiring a private detective if they think the Claimant is making up their injuries or lying about how long their symptoms are lasting. If the symptoms are genuine, what has the Claimant got to worry about? Also, if the Defendant successfully defends the claim, they’ll recover their costs and disbursements from the Claimant. So ultimately, the Claimant or their insurer could be paying for the people who were snooping on them in the first place.Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
Solicitors are meant to be aggressive. I assure you, some of the things Claimant solicitors get up to are worse than what you’ve detailed above.
solo2 said:
Similar thing happened to a friend of mine in one of the big supermarkets. You'd think a clear cut case but they used their super aggressive solicitors to go after her even trying to catch her out filming her doing things her injury meant she couldn't. They'd follow her filming from a car, I saw footage she'd been sent where she came to visit me with her kids - complete bully boy tactics.
Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
Nice to know she got caught out. Great work by the accident investigators. Needless to say it cost them a small fortune in solicitor fees to try to defend her/their case nearly causing them to lose their home. She didn't win.
Astounded. Every little helps clearly didn't help!!!
As to the OP, if/when this goes to court, no doubt being a big name supermarket there will be CCTV footage of the incident, and this would likely show whether a reasonable person should have been able to notice and avoid slipping on the packaging or if the supermarket are negligent.
Some food for thought, thank you to the helpful ones.
I won't bother showing you the photographs of the injuries or detailing how they may affect their life and work but to all those suggesting in true PH style that this may be some kind of spurious 'compensashun' based ambulance chasing, please don't hesitate to go f
k yourselves.
I won't bother showing you the photographs of the injuries or detailing how they may affect their life and work but to all those suggesting in true PH style that this may be some kind of spurious 'compensashun' based ambulance chasing, please don't hesitate to go f
k yourselves.minimoog said:
Some food for thought, thank you to the helpful ones.
I won't bother showing you the photographs of the injuries or detailing how they may affect their life and work but to all those suggesting in true PH style that this may be some kind of spurious 'compensashun' based ambulance chasing, please don't hesitate to go fk yourselves.
Posting on here and expecting every comment to be in your favour in quite naive so there's no need to get abusive. Most posts whether you like it or not clearly point out both sides of the situation and you should be prepared for both success and failure if you take legal action. If your intentions are not compensation then what are they? As you state in your first post it was you who instigated this thought. I won't bother showing you the photographs of the injuries or detailing how they may affect their life and work but to all those suggesting in true PH style that this may be some kind of spurious 'compensashun' based ambulance chasing, please don't hesitate to go f
k yourselves.speedyguy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CarbonV12V said:
Was the cardboard packaging lying in camouflage in the aisle or was it in full view - was it really negligence on behalf of the supermarket or just carelessness on behalf of the injured party.
Well that's why we have courts. To make decisions like that. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff