Is it worth pursuing? - Legal Claim
Discussion
Back in August last year, my other half's car was written off by a car transporter lorry.
She was on the M25, in lane two as had passed two other cars. Everyone was driving fairly slowly (around 50mph) due to the rain coming in and then clearing. Guy in the car transporter lorry comes up behind some slower moving cars in lane one, pulls out and despite all traffic slowing he closes in on my other half's car. Rain suddenly comes in extremely hard, overwhelms the wipers (witnesses to back this up as they did the same). She applies her brakes and he doesn't, so her cars ends up like this...
Fortunately the kids (3 & 6 months) were unharmed but my other didn't fair so well. Still struggling with a shoulder injury, constant pain from it and has recently been told by occupational health that when she returns from maternity leave, she won't be able to go back to clinical work. This is until they are confident it won't cause her any further injury.
Anyway, we were put in touch with a 'no win no fee' type law firm as she didn't have legal cover on her policy. They took up the claim. The third party submitted dashcam footage. This shows my other half driving fine in lane 2, it shows the car transporter overtaking other cars and closing in on our car. You see other cars brake due to the weather just as my other half does then the accident.
Sorry for going on. In short the legal firm have said that because the other side are denying liability and say that my other have braked unexpectedly that they are not planning to pursue the case and have dropped it. They say that the dashcam footage shows this and they don't recommend continuing the case and that's that.
Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
I can't help feeling that the guy driving the car transporter, doesn't slow down and is then caught out when something unexpected does happen can be anything but to blame for it? Feels like due to the dashcam footage that's it and witnesses don't account for much despite having two sets of witnesses who corroborate the events.
I appreciate this post opens me up for some, 'Claim culture' comments. The reality is that my other half is in almost constant pain, we will be losing money as she has to reduce hours and we will have to pay out more child care as she can't go back to the same job for a period of time. So we are genuinely out of pocked due to someone else's carelessness.
She was on the M25, in lane two as had passed two other cars. Everyone was driving fairly slowly (around 50mph) due to the rain coming in and then clearing. Guy in the car transporter lorry comes up behind some slower moving cars in lane one, pulls out and despite all traffic slowing he closes in on my other half's car. Rain suddenly comes in extremely hard, overwhelms the wipers (witnesses to back this up as they did the same). She applies her brakes and he doesn't, so her cars ends up like this...
Fortunately the kids (3 & 6 months) were unharmed but my other didn't fair so well. Still struggling with a shoulder injury, constant pain from it and has recently been told by occupational health that when she returns from maternity leave, she won't be able to go back to clinical work. This is until they are confident it won't cause her any further injury.
Anyway, we were put in touch with a 'no win no fee' type law firm as she didn't have legal cover on her policy. They took up the claim. The third party submitted dashcam footage. This shows my other half driving fine in lane 2, it shows the car transporter overtaking other cars and closing in on our car. You see other cars brake due to the weather just as my other half does then the accident.
Sorry for going on. In short the legal firm have said that because the other side are denying liability and say that my other have braked unexpectedly that they are not planning to pursue the case and have dropped it. They say that the dashcam footage shows this and they don't recommend continuing the case and that's that.
Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
I can't help feeling that the guy driving the car transporter, doesn't slow down and is then caught out when something unexpected does happen can be anything but to blame for it? Feels like due to the dashcam footage that's it and witnesses don't account for much despite having two sets of witnesses who corroborate the events.
I appreciate this post opens me up for some, 'Claim culture' comments. The reality is that my other half is in almost constant pain, we will be losing money as she has to reduce hours and we will have to pay out more child care as she can't go back to the same job for a period of time. So we are genuinely out of pocked due to someone else's carelessness.
Alex_225 said:
Back in August last year, my other half's car was written off by a car transporter lorry.
She was on the M25, in lane two as had passed two other cars. Everyone was driving fairly slowly (around 50mph) due to the rain coming in and then clearing. Guy in the car transporter lorry comes up behind some slower moving cars in lane one, pulls out and despite all traffic slowing he closes in on my other half's car. Rain suddenly comes in extremely hard, overwhelms the wipers (witnesses to back this up as they did the same). She applies her brakes and he doesn't, so her cars ends up like this...
Fortunately the kids (3 & 6 months) were unharmed but my other didn't fair so well. Still struggling with a shoulder injury, constant pain from it and has recently been told by occupational health that when she returns from maternity leave, she won't be able to go back to clinical work. This is until they are confident it won't cause her any further injury.
Anyway, we were put in touch with a 'no win no fee' type law firm as she didn't have legal cover on her policy. They took up the claim. The third party submitted dashcam footage. This shows my other half driving fine in lane 2, it shows the car transporter overtaking other cars and closing in on our car. You see other cars brake due to the weather just as my other half does then the accident.
Sorry for going on. In short the legal firm have said that because the other side are denying liability and say that my other have braked unexpectedly that they are not planning to pursue the case and have dropped it. They say that the dashcam footage shows this and they don't recommend continuing the case and that's that.
Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
I can't help feeling that the guy driving the car transporter, doesn't slow down and is then caught out when something unexpected does happen can be anything but to blame for it? Feels like due to the dashcam footage that's it and witnesses don't account for much despite having two sets of witnesses who corroborate the events.
I appreciate this post opens me up for some, 'Claim culture' comments. The reality is that my other half is in almost constant pain, we will be losing money as she has to reduce hours and we will have to pay out more child care as she can't go back to the same job for a period of time. So we are genuinely out of pocked due to someone else's carelessness.
Always worth getting a second opinion. Don't worry about claim culture - this is not a 5mph shunt "oh my neck" situation and she could well have substantial future losses if she has to give up part of her work.She was on the M25, in lane two as had passed two other cars. Everyone was driving fairly slowly (around 50mph) due to the rain coming in and then clearing. Guy in the car transporter lorry comes up behind some slower moving cars in lane one, pulls out and despite all traffic slowing he closes in on my other half's car. Rain suddenly comes in extremely hard, overwhelms the wipers (witnesses to back this up as they did the same). She applies her brakes and he doesn't, so her cars ends up like this...
Fortunately the kids (3 & 6 months) were unharmed but my other didn't fair so well. Still struggling with a shoulder injury, constant pain from it and has recently been told by occupational health that when she returns from maternity leave, she won't be able to go back to clinical work. This is until they are confident it won't cause her any further injury.
Anyway, we were put in touch with a 'no win no fee' type law firm as she didn't have legal cover on her policy. They took up the claim. The third party submitted dashcam footage. This shows my other half driving fine in lane 2, it shows the car transporter overtaking other cars and closing in on our car. You see other cars brake due to the weather just as my other half does then the accident.
Sorry for going on. In short the legal firm have said that because the other side are denying liability and say that my other have braked unexpectedly that they are not planning to pursue the case and have dropped it. They say that the dashcam footage shows this and they don't recommend continuing the case and that's that.
Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
I can't help feeling that the guy driving the car transporter, doesn't slow down and is then caught out when something unexpected does happen can be anything but to blame for it? Feels like due to the dashcam footage that's it and witnesses don't account for much despite having two sets of witnesses who corroborate the events.
I appreciate this post opens me up for some, 'Claim culture' comments. The reality is that my other half is in almost constant pain, we will be losing money as she has to reduce hours and we will have to pay out more child care as she can't go back to the same job for a period of time. So we are genuinely out of pocked due to someone else's carelessness.
Suggest getting someone who is APIL accredited. Research the firm and avoid the factory firms where you may have an unqualified paralegal reviewing the case. They might be extremely experienced, or might have started last week....
https://www.apil.org.uk/
Be prepared to put some leg work in yourself. Have you got the police report? Don't count on them having followed up all lines of enquiry.
Ultimately all lawyers will have their own view on merits and some firms will deliberately only want to deal with the more straightforward cases so I wouldn't just take their word for it.
Oh and obviously read the terms of engagement very carefully! There are often situations set out in the no win, no fee document where you can be billed for certain things.
Good luck.
I'm against claiming compensation for everything, but this does sound reasonable. I am NOT a lowyer; however, I would expect that your chances of success would depend on the precise circumstances, and those would be impossible to comment on without seeing the dash cam footage. The "No Win, No Fee" firms only seem to take cases on if they have a pretty good (75-90%) chance of winning, whereas, in my experience, insurance provided legal firms took on cases at 50% chance of winning (not limited to motor claims).
If you have legal expenses cover for your household insurance, you may find that they may provide the cover you need for this case. If they don't, it may be worth paying a small amount for an initial consultation by a specialist motoring legal expert, but not a "No Win, No Fee" type. There are some on here and may be able to advise.
For the rest of us to make any sensible comments, I think it needs to be seen to be clearly different from brake checking the car transporter, so the important things to know will be:
How sudden was the downpour?
What was the original speed your wife was travelling at?
What was the gap between her car and the car transporter?
Did the car in front of her brake suddenly?
How sharply did she brake?
Was there a justifiable reason for her to brake with the force she did?
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
If you have legal expenses cover for your household insurance, you may find that they may provide the cover you need for this case. If they don't, it may be worth paying a small amount for an initial consultation by a specialist motoring legal expert, but not a "No Win, No Fee" type. There are some on here and may be able to advise.
For the rest of us to make any sensible comments, I think it needs to be seen to be clearly different from brake checking the car transporter, so the important things to know will be:
How sudden was the downpour?
What was the original speed your wife was travelling at?
What was the gap between her car and the car transporter?
Did the car in front of her brake suddenly?
How sharply did she brake?
Was there a justifiable reason for her to brake with the force she did?
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
Discounting the crash for cash schemes any hit from behind crash is almost always put down to the rearmost vehicle not keeping a large enough gap to be able to stop in time.
No matter how hard your other half was braking, it could have been an emergency the vehicle behind is meant to be able to brake just as hard and stop in time.
No matter how hard your other half was braking, it could have been an emergency the vehicle behind is meant to be able to brake just as hard and stop in time.
QuickQuack said:
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
Is that necessary though? In pretty much all situations if you drive into the back of another vehicle it's your fault. The vehicle in front doesn't have to justify why they were braking.carl_w said:
QuickQuack said:
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
Is that necessary though? In pretty much all situations if you drive into the back of another vehicle it's your fault. The vehicle in front doesn't have to justify why they were braking.Alex_225 said:
...
Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
...
can you not claim your wife's work/health losses from your own insurance company? As they should then pursue any monies they can get from other side.Question is, is it worth pursuing with another law firm? Is their way of wiping their hands because the case isn't as simple as they initially thought?
...
how much are you claiming.
As said, getting hit from behind is normally the person behind fault, but if Truckers insurers are not settling then needs to be enough money in it for a no win no fee arrangement.
This seems pretty straightforward to me. Struggling to see what I'm missing.
Lorry has rear-ended your wife's car. Regardless of what they consider to be extenuating circumstances, that puts the lorry at fault.
On that basis, damage to car and any other losses should be covered by them. Your wife's in pain as a result, so she needs some recompense for that.
It's up to her how she uses it, but the idea would be that she can use that money for rehab - regular visits to the chiropractor, for instance.
The basic premise of insurance is 'Indemnity' - that you should be put back into the position you were in prior to the incident. A replacement car is the obvious one. But less obvious perhaps is a claim for injury. It's not compensation culture, it's simply acknowledging that she didn't have such pain before the incident and now she does.
Find a no-win, no-fee outfit using the link in the post above and have them deal with it.
Lorry has rear-ended your wife's car. Regardless of what they consider to be extenuating circumstances, that puts the lorry at fault.
On that basis, damage to car and any other losses should be covered by them. Your wife's in pain as a result, so she needs some recompense for that.
It's up to her how she uses it, but the idea would be that she can use that money for rehab - regular visits to the chiropractor, for instance.
The basic premise of insurance is 'Indemnity' - that you should be put back into the position you were in prior to the incident. A replacement car is the obvious one. But less obvious perhaps is a claim for injury. It's not compensation culture, it's simply acknowledging that she didn't have such pain before the incident and now she does.
Find a no-win, no-fee outfit using the link in the post above and have them deal with it.
R56Cooper said:
Be prepared to put some leg work in yourself. Have you got the police report? Don't count on them having followed up all lines of enquiry.....
Good luck.
Thanks for this post, that link is great and some really helpful info there. Good luck.
Frustratingly the Police never attended, what we thought was the Police were simply traffic officers who were more concerned about getting the road opened and everyone on their way. The other drive left without leaving details despite being told by the officers to do so and they seemed to just shrug it off.
QuickQuack said:
For the rest of us to make any sensible comments, I think it needs to be seen to be clearly different from brake checking the car transporter, so the important things to know will be:
How sudden was the downpour?
What was the original speed your wife was travelling at?
What was the gap between her car and the car transporter?
Did the car in front of her brake suddenly?
How sharply did she brake?
Was there a justifiable reason for her to brake with the force she did?
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
Thanks for the reply to just in response to your questions....How sudden was the downpour?
What was the original speed your wife was travelling at?
What was the gap between her car and the car transporter?
Did the car in front of her brake suddenly?
How sharply did she brake?
Was there a justifiable reason for her to brake with the force she did?
If she can justify her braking to an independent 3rd party reviewing the dash cam footage, then she's good to go with the case. It may be worth putting it up here for opinions first.
The downpour was heavy, I drove to pick them up and the weather harsh. She reacted by basically being completely blinded. In the footage you see another vehicle brake a split second before my other half does in response to the rain coming in.
My other half was approximately 40mph, speed of the lorry throughout was higher. You can see in the footage she comes off the throttle and he continues closing in on the back of her car. Then the rain hits, she brakes and he's got no where to go.
There's no car ahead that you can see as the angle of the footage doesn't show further up the road. Other vehicles can be seen reacting to the weather in the other lanes.
Hard to say how suddenly, she certainly didn't emergency stop. She braked firmly but with the lorry making no adjustment in speed and then being caught by surprised he was probably doing 20mph+ or more at the point of impact.
In terms of justification for braking, I believe so and those witnesses at the scene believed so as well. They commented that the lorry didn't adjust his speed and carried on where everyone else slowed down.
I do see your angle on it because of course you need to establish whether something is done on purpose or not. We've all seen footage of someone seeming to intentionally cause a rear end shunt. Unfortunately the footage doesn't show a great deal of context. Shows other half in lane two, shows lorry approach the back of vehicles in lane one and overtake them. My other half eases off the throttle, he carries on getting closer, she brakes and bang.
Ultimately he assumed the traffic would speed up so continued to get closer and closer. Instead of what he expected, the traffic suddenly slowed. She could have been braking for debris or another vehicle but either way he didn't anticipate having to brake and in turn got caught out by a genuine reaction to rain that blinded her.
In terms of the footage, we've only been given links to it on the law firms portal, not actually been sent a downloadable version.
Also, thank you to all the replies on here. It's been really helpful. My other half is struggling with it, she feels a lot of guilt as she's now got the feeling that the whole situation was her fault, putting kids in danger etc. Plus the daily discomfort she's in anyway.
I'm interested to know whether the trucker's insurance paid out for the car? From what you're saying it sounds like as open-and-shut a case as you ever really hope to see, especially with the independent witnesses, so seems a bit odd for a law firm to drop it so easily.
Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy b
ds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion.
Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy b
ds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion. Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Wednesday 16th February 15:09
Roger Irrelevant said:
I'm interested to know whether the trucker's insurance paid out for the car? From what you're saying it sounds like as open-and-shut a case as you ever really hope to see, especially with the independent witnesses, so seems a bit odd for a law firm to drop it so easily.
Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy bds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion.
It's a very good question actually. We've not yet heard from the insurance but like you say if they paid out for that then that's technically admitting liability. Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy b
ds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion. I'm slightly swaying towards your edit where you say they give up at the slightest bit of push back from the third party. I'm not even sure (waiting for confirmation) if they have even been in contact with the two sets of witnesses.
Alex_225 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
I'm interested to know whether the trucker's insurance paid out for the car? From what you're saying it sounds like as open-and-shut a case as you ever really hope to see, especially with the independent witnesses, so seems a bit odd for a law firm to drop it so easily.
Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy bds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion.
It's a very good question actually. We've not yet heard from the insurance but like you say if they paid out for that then that's technically admitting liability. Edit: ...unless they're not really a 'law firm' as such but a bunch of lazy b
ds who will only pursue a case until the other side puts up the slightest bit of resistance, at which point they decide it's a bit too much effort and so move onto the next one. This is very possible and if so it could well be worth getting a second opinion. I'm slightly swaying towards your edit where you say they give up at the slightest bit of push back from the third party. I'm not even sure (waiting for confirmation) if they have even been in contact with the two sets of witnesses.
The person behind has the responsibility for making sure they leave a big enough gap to react in an emergency. The lorry did not. It can't be much simpler. That's the reason we are supposed to leave big gaps (which every bugger zips into and fills...).
I'd imagine they'd have to prove mallicious intent on your wife's behalf to get out of this, and I can't imagine how they would, particularly in such terrible conditions.
nickfrog said:
I agree with the comments about insurance. She doesn't need to have legal cover to make a standard claim for the injury / incapacity. That's the entire point of insurance, give them a call and re open the claim if need be.
I'm not so sure about that. My mrs didn't have legal cover. We got shunted from behind, and the insurers passed us onto a claims co. who took their cut from the injury claim. That's the whole point of the insurers selling you legal cover as an extra (which I take out now!) - they won't pursure claims that are not "the car" unless you take out their legal cover package.I could stand corrected of course. But it's what happened to us.
I am glad your wife and kids are ok (although feeling sore) .
She should not be feeling bad at all it is all the lorry drivers fault regardless if she slowed down or not .
If he left the scene without exchanging details he could / should be charged with this
Have you contacted the police to get this sorted as they should be contacting the driver?
You should get your insurance company to sort treatment for your wife asap , She should go to see her Doctor as well.
I hope you get this all sorted soon.
She should not be feeling bad at all it is all the lorry drivers fault regardless if she slowed down or not .
If he left the scene without exchanging details he could / should be charged with this
Have you contacted the police to get this sorted as they should be contacting the driver?
You should get your insurance company to sort treatment for your wife asap , She should go to see her Doctor as well.
I hope you get this all sorted soon.
Griffith4ever said:
The person behind has the responsibility for making sure they leave a big enough gap to react in an emergency. The lorry did not. It can't be much simpler. That's the reason we are supposed to leave big gaps (which every bugger zips into and fills...).
I'd imagine they'd have to prove mallicious intent on your wife's behalf to get out of this, and I can't imagine how they would, particularly in such terrible conditions.
Just what I was thinking.I'd imagine they'd have to prove mallicious intent on your wife's behalf to get out of this, and I can't imagine how they would, particularly in such terrible conditions.
Ditch the ambulance chasing law firm and use someone decent.
nickfrog said:
I agree with the comments about insurance. She doesn't need to have legal cover to make a standard claim for the injury / incapacity.
Of course, she could make the claim herself. But really, she needs solicitors to make it for her and for that, she either has to appoint one or have legal cover. Her own insurers will not help. Her own injuries aren't covered by her own insurance. This is an uninsured loss claim, just like recovery of her excess. I think the existing solicitors have bottled it. It's no win no fee and so now they tp have denied liability, they think it's too much work. But from the circumstances, the lorry is 100% to blame.
I would be looking for another solicitor. Or handling it myself. Small claims court goes up to £5k for injury on a claim occurring in August last year. Plus your policy excess and any other uninsured losses up to a total of £10K
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff