Proving liability

[cnut]

Nearly 2 years ago I was involved in a low speed collision after I had finished parking my car in an on street parking bay. The claimant's car drove into the rear of my car causing a minor scuff to the bumper of both cars, due to I suspect them panicking over a bus the traveling towards us.

I know you shouldn't judge but I could tell straight away the sort of people I was dealing with so I was quick to take photos of both cars showing the damage.

A few weeks after the incident I received an personal injury claim from both the driver and passenger of the car, they were trying to pin the blame on me by claiming I reversed into the back of them rather than them driving into the rear of my at the time stationary car.

To cut a long story short they are trying to not only claim for damage to their vehicle but also personal injury and driving anxiety, basically everything they possibly can!

My insurance company appointed a solicitor to defend me.

The hearing was due at the end of the month but the case was struck out because they didn't pay the hearing fee on time!!

Now it's likely to be reinstated from what I have heard which means more months of waiting ahead for me.

My solicitor has picked up a number of discrepancies in their statement which works in my favour.

I'm just wondering if anyone else has had anything similar happen to them and what the outcome was? Also how does a judge prove liability in such a case?

Thanks

[GranpaB]

How did this even get to the point of you having to go to court? Your insurance company should be dealing with this directly surely?

[Nigel Worc's]

My only experience was being accused of being involved in a accident that never was.......a scam if you will.

A mixture of "they'd done it before", excellent Police work by West Midlands Police (who were looking into this group), and CCTV from the factory where my car actually was during this mythical accident was my saviour.

Ever since then (some fourteen years ago now) I have always had a dashcam in my car/van/motorhome, and I use a helmet cam on my motorcycle and very recent pushbike.........I've not needed it since as I'd never needed it before, but they are so cheap and good now I would recommend one.

[cnut]

GranpaB said:

How did this even get to the point of you having to go to court? Your insurance company should be dealing with this directly surely?

I believe it's because liability is disputed and my insurance company believe my statement of events so are refusing to pay the claimant a penny. Why I need to go to court in person albeit remotely I do not know.

[cnut]

Nigel Worc's said:

My only experience was being accused of being involved in a accident that never was.......a scam if you will.

A mixture of "they'd done it before", excellent Police work by West Midlands Police (who were looking into this group), and CCTV from the factory where my car actually was during this mythical accident was my saviour.

Ever since then (some fourteen years ago now) I have always had a dashcam in my car/van/motorhome, and I use a helmet cam on my motorcycle and very recent pushbike.........I've not needed it since as I'd never needed it before, but they are so cheap and good now I would recommend one.

You're lucky, I would put the driver in my incident as more of a chancer than a professional scammer although I could be wrong. I did manage to find a newspaper article of the claimant getting fined for 3 points back in 2016 for speeding, whether or not this makes a difference I have no idea.

We have invested in one now, they can be invaluable at times like this!

[anonymous-user]

said:

I believe it's because liability is disputed and my insurance company believe my statement of events so are refusing to pay the claimant a penny. Why I need to go to court in person albeit remotely I do not know.

To give your evidence which will support your insurance company in their defence of the claim.

It's one of the things we all sign up to in our contract with the insurance company.

Likelyhood of having to give evidence is probably fairly low as unless it's very high value a lot of these cases get settled at the last gasp before court action, but if it happens it happens.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GranpaB said:

How did this even get to the point of you having to go to court? Your insurance company should be dealing with this directly surely?

If the OP's insurers are refusing to settle the tp claim, then it's right that the tp sues the OP personally, as they are claiming he's responsible, and the OP has to attend court to defend the claim. If he loses, all costs will be met by his insurers, who will arrange and pay for legal representation if required in court.

This is perfectly normal.

[cnut]

Thanks everyone, yep I have got a half decent dash cam. Things like this could have been settled much faster if either of us had one...

I was always under the impression that if you are rear ended the fault is automatically assumed to be the driver from behind unless proven otherwise?

[Pro Bono]

It might be worth asking your solicitors to throw the words `fundamental dishonesty' into the pot. As a result of new laws introduced a few years ago the courts can (and do) sometimes find that a claimant is an out and out liar, in which case they can not only refuse him any compensation and order him to pay the insurer's costs, but also have them done for contempt of court, which can mean a spell behind bars.

It's just possible that such a warning might scare them into dropping the case.

I think it's a brilliant piece of legislation, and it's deeply satisfying to read about some lying scrote being well and truly shafted by his own greed - http://insurance.dwf.co.uk/news-updates/2016/10/pr...

[cnut]

That’s brilliant! I will talk to my solicitor and see what they think.

What makes it tricky for me is that they have had a doctor confirm they had suffered whiplash as a result of the accident which I find amazing when myself and family had no injuries whatsoever.

Especially considering we were rear ended and they had a significantly larger car than us!

How the hell did they pull that one off?

I would share the photos if the case wasn’t pending as the damage is so minor it’s laughable!

Edited by on Tuesday 19th July 21:00

[mattyprice4004]

Blimey, good luck.
I had similar with a load of ‘unit bruvs’ many years ago in a car park - I was sat in my car, engine off and they clipped the back of my car… you can guess the rest.
Insurance company dropped them and apparently shortly after another incident led to the same group being arrested for similar.

People are dicks.

[QuickQuack]

said:

That’s brilliant! I will talk to my solicitor and see what they think.

What makes it tricky for me is that they have had a doctor confirm they had suffered whiplash as a result of the accident which I find amazing when myself and family had no injuries whatsoever.

Especially considering we were rear ended and they had a significantly larger car than us!

How the hell did they pull that one off?

I would share the photos if the case wasn’t pending as the damage is so minor it’s laughable!

Edited by on Tuesday 19th July 21:00

Go through that "medical confirmation" with a fine tooth comb including by whom it was "confirmed". In most of these cases, there's no clinical sign or radiological method which can conclusively prove an injury so one has to believe the symptoms being told by the patient. However, most of us are aware that many of these things are for just personal gain and exaggerated, so the notes should hopefully say "patient complains of..., patient says..., on examination, complains of pain at..." etc. so that they have recorded what the patient complains of. Any negative or positive examination finding should also be recorded. The more junior the examining doctor, the easier to pull the wool over their eyes. If they've only been seen by an FY2 level doctor in A&E and been diagnosed with whiplash, you should be able to demolish that "diagnosis" in a matter of seconds. Any whiplash claim that's out of keeping with the speed and direction of the impact, which should be estimable from the damage suffered by the cars, is also going to be useful in demonstrating the unreliability of the witness statements regarding the presence and severity of any whiplash or similar injury.

I'm not an orthopod but I am a doctor, so I'd be happy to have a quick look at the medical stuff to see if there are any glaring holes if you like (feel free to PM me). Any deficiencies there would add weight to the 'fundamental dishonesty' narrative.

[jondude]

said:

Thanks everyone, yep I have got a half decent dash cam. Things like this could have been settled much faster if either of us had one...

I was always under the impression that if you are rear ended the fault is automatically assumed to be the driver from behind unless proven otherwise?

It is indeed, the one hitting you is the creator of their own misfortune as they did not keep a distance which they could see to be clear. The argument they are making, that you reversed into them, is the only (rather childish) defence they can make if trying to get out of it.

I guess they are thinking courts are headed by humans and so in court it will come down to how those humans feel about it.

I'd like to think the court would work from the default position of wanting proof and reasons for you to choose to reverse - and that unless he can prove that, the fact he hit you makes it 100% his fault for the reasons above.

[cnut]

QuickQuack said:

Go through that "medical confirmation" with a fine tooth comb including by whom it was "confirmed". In most of these cases, there's no clinical sign or radiological method which can conclusively prove an injury so one has to believe the symptoms being told by the patient. However, most of us are aware that many of these things are for just personal gain and exaggerated, so the notes should hopefully say "patient complains of..., patient says..., on examination, complains of pain at..." etc. so that they have recorded what the patient complains of. Any negative or positive examination finding should also be recorded. The more junior the examining doctor, the easier to pull the wool over their eyes. If they've only been seen by an FY2 level doctor in A&E and been diagnosed with whiplash, you should be able to demolish that "diagnosis" in a matter of seconds. Any whiplash claim that's out of keeping with the speed and direction of the impact, which should be estimable from the damage suffered by the cars, is also going to be useful in demonstrating the unreliability of the witness statements regarding the presence and severity of any whiplash or similar injury.

I'm not an orthopod but I am a doctor, so I'd be happy to have a quick look at the medical stuff to see if there are any glaring holes if you like (feel free to PM me). Any deficiencies there would add weight to the 'fundamental dishonesty' narrative.

Thank you, he was examined by a GP. I have asked my solicitor for a copy of their medical confirmation. If I can receive a copy I will PM you.

[cnut]

jondude said:

It is indeed, the one hitting you is the creator of their own misfortune as they did not keep a distance which they could see to be clear. The argument they are making, that you reversed into them, is the only (rather childish) defence they can make if trying to get out of it.

I guess they are thinking courts are headed by humans and so in court it will come down to how those humans feel about it.

I'd like to think the court would work from the default position of wanting proof and reasons for you to choose to reverse - and that unless he can prove that, the fact he hit you makes it 100% his fault for the reasons above.

I thought as much, I know it's even in the Highway Code about maintaining a distance between your car and the car in front.

[cnut]

mattyprice4004 said:

Blimey, good luck.
I had similar with a load of ‘unit bruvs’ many years ago in a car park - I was sat in my car, engine off and they clipped the back of my car… you can guess the rest.
Insurance company dropped them and apparently shortly after another incident led to the same group being arrested for similar.

People are dicks.

Yes they are! I could have probably claimed the same if I was that way in inclined but I'm just not that sort of person.

[2Btoo]

said:

QuickQuack said:

Go through that "medical confirmation" with a fine tooth comb including by whom it was "confirmed". In most of these cases, there's no clinical sign or radiological method which can conclusively prove an injury so one has to believe the symptoms being told by the patient. However, most of us are aware that many of these things are for just personal gain and exaggerated, so the notes should hopefully say "patient complains of..., patient says..., on examination, complains of pain at..." etc. so that they have recorded what the patient complains of. Any negative or positive examination finding should also be recorded. The more junior the examining doctor, the easier to pull the wool over their eyes. If they've only been seen by an FY2 level doctor in A&E and been diagnosed with whiplash, you should be able to demolish that "diagnosis" in a matter of seconds. Any whiplash claim that's out of keeping with the speed and direction of the impact, which should be estimable from the damage suffered by the cars, is also going to be useful in demonstrating the unreliability of the witness statements regarding the presence and severity of any whiplash or similar injury.

I'm not an orthopod but I am a doctor, so I'd be happy to have a quick look at the medical stuff to see if there are any glaring holes if you like (feel free to PM me). Any deficiencies there would add weight to the 'fundamental dishonesty' narrative.

Thank you, he was examined by a GP. I have asked my solicitor for a copy of their medical confirmation. If I can receive a copy I will PM you.

FWIW I understand that there are a number of doctors who are known to diagnose known-fraudulent whiplash injuries in 'crash-for-cash' cases. I can't help with providing a copy of the list but your insurance company may well know more about this 'doctor' which would further help your case.

Either way, best of luck with it. Well done for fighting it; if every such case was fought hard then such chancers wouldn't be so quick to try their luck.

[speedking31]

said:

... they were trying to pin the blame on me by claiming I reversed into the back of them rather than them driving into the rear of my at the time stationary car.

If it is their rear that they are claiming was damaged then it is a complete fabrication as anyone could invent against any driver.

[cnut]

2Btoo said:

FWIW I understand that there are a number of doctors who are known to diagnose known-fraudulent whiplash injuries in 'crash-for-cash' cases. I can't help with providing a copy of the list but your insurance company may well know more about this 'doctor' which would further help your case.

Either way, best of luck with it. Well done for fighting it; if every such case was fought hard then such chancers wouldn't be so quick to try their luck.

Thanks, I will hopefully hear back soon from them.

I just hate the thought of someone using my name to claim for something they are not entitled to, absolute scum!

[cnut]

speedking31 said:

confused:

If it is their rear that they are claiming was damaged then it is a complete fabrication as anyone could invent against any driver.

They are claiming their front bumper was damaged which it was but it was right on the nearside corner and a scuff along the side of the front bumper. You can see from the marks where they had run along the rear of my bumper.