Who should pay this lady compensation?

[W124Bob]

East Coast Rail may pay out for delays but they will then seek recompense from Network Rail,delay attribution is an area which sees many people chasing the causes of delay.One companies fine is anothers revenue stream!

[DonkeyApple]

Carrot said:

That's fine, mortgage company is paid directly from the insurer based on the directly paid treatment for the injury.

£7k cash in hand is not going to change anything.

I have no problems whatsoever in people being compensated for actual loss. There are very, very few reasons for people to have cash to spend on what they want.

I very much agree with your concept of paying directly so that the recipient doesn't actually ever see any physical cash.

I would also say that the lawyers fees would also go before a group who would decide what those fees were based on the work done.

[Steameh]

Carrot said:

If someone suffers a genuine problem, lets say whiplash, they should not get any cash, but direct private care to deal with the problem. Those that are faking it wont be interested in treatment, therefore claims for non-genuine claims will drop.

Likewise the story, if someone suffers genuine psychological hardship and needs counselling, give them counselling and pay the counseller direct.

I really don't understand how a "lump sum of cash" helps anyone in reality, apart from making them richer.

Of course, a lot of people are opposed to the idea as they want their slice of the action if they suffer a problem.

Personally I have never claimed a penny despite being in two situations (non fault motorcycle accident, non fault car accident) to do so, and on both occasions I only claimed to get my vehicles up the standard that they were before the accident. I still walk with a limp when it rains, but that is life and st happens. Having £7k in cash is not going to change that.

]

I can see how a lump sum would help in the US in this instance, primarily due to medical bills.

[GeraldSmith]

Carrot said:

If someone suffers a genuine problem, lets say whiplash, they should not get any cash, but direct private care to deal with the problem. Those that are faking it wont be interested in treatment, therefore claims for non-genuine claims will drop.

Likewise the story, if someone suffers genuine psychological hardship and needs counselling, give them counselling and pay the counseller direct.

I really don't understand how a "lump sum of cash" helps anyone in reality, apart from making them richer.

Of course, a lot of people are opposed to the idea as they want their slice of the action if they suffer a problem.

Personally I have never claimed a penny despite being in two situations (non fault motorcycle accident, non fault car accident) to do so, and on both occasions I only claimed to get my vehicles up the standard that they were before the accident. I still walk with a limp when it rains, but that is life and st happens. Having £7k in cash is not going to change that.

It is difficult, in my case I had all sorts of issues, I couldn't play sports for a while, I couldn't do the gardening, I couldn't sleep well so my work suffered, there were all sorts of knock on consequences. I had physiotherapy, which was paid for, but that was the least of the issues.

Cash doesn't bring back the things that you lose, but it can help, the difficulty is putting a monetary value on something that you can't buy. In my case the money I got was trivial compared to the problems, there is no way I'd view it as having been a fair deal, even at ten times the amount if it were possible to chose not to have the accident instead I would have done.

[rs1952]

King Herald said:

I'm surprised nobody raises the issue that it is as dangerous as all buggeration having trains hurtling through stations at full speed with no fence, wall, cage to keep the passengers separated from it.

I can see a counter-claim by the dead guys estate on the station owners, for not having safety barriers etc.

Are you in the PI trade, coming up with a ststement like that?

If such an idea was adopted on H&S grounds, then by extension every road in the country would also need to have a fence, wall, cage along it to separate pedestrians from the highly dangerous road traffic going past them.

And what you'd do about bits of NSL in the middle of the country with no pavements alongside is another matter again

[Halb]

rs1952 said:

Tough perhaps on the woman concerned, but here's a novel thought - when something unpleasant happens to you, it isn't necessarily somebody else's fault

Get over it

In this case though it is the fault of the man who crossed, and the fault of the station.
She is quite right to sue considering her injuries.

[King Herald]

Carrot said:

That's fine, mortgage company is paid directly from the insurer based on the directly paid treatment for the injury.

£7k cash in hand is not going to change anything.

I have no problems whatsoever in people being compensated for actual loss. There are very, very few reasons for people to have cash to spend on what they want.

So in that vein people should not be fined for breaking the law? Remove cash to punish, pay cash to compensate people for suffering or hardship. Simples.

And if you don't want it, you can always give it to charidee.

[MX7]

King Herald said:

Carrot said:

That's fine, mortgage company is paid directly from the insurer based on the directly paid treatment for the injury.

£7k cash in hand is not going to change anything.

I have no problems whatsoever in people being compensated for actual loss. There are very, very few reasons for people to have cash to spend on what they want.

So in that vein people should not be fined for breaking the law?

Are you sure that's a good comparison?