Do PHers ever think compensation is acceptable?
Discussion
I find it interesting that any time anyone mentions having had an accident and looking for compensation - or in the case of the Play.com thread, didn't even mention looking for compensation - the average PHer seems to start frothing at the mouth about compensation culture and how the person in question should accept that accidents happen and just grin and bear it.
So, for those PHers and others, where would you draw the line? When has someone been so negligent that they should be paying compensation?
There seems to be a belief on here that just because some pikeys claim totally unjustified compensation, anyone claiming compensation is a pikey. To me it's a mindset no different to the one that says just because some nutters drive through 30 zones at 90, all drivers breaking any speed limits are dangerous lunatics.
So, for those PHers and others, where would you draw the line? When has someone been so negligent that they should be paying compensation?
There seems to be a belief on here that just because some pikeys claim totally unjustified compensation, anyone claiming compensation is a pikey. To me it's a mindset no different to the one that says just because some nutters drive through 30 zones at 90, all drivers breaking any speed limits are dangerous lunatics.
No, of course not. If you are genuinely injured/maimed/suffer damages, and someone else was genuinely at fault (falling off a ladder because you're a window licking mouth breather and then suing a ladder company does not count, for example), then compensation is not just deserved - it's probably vital.
Damages are think meant to reimburse someone for genuine loss. If someone was messing with their iPod while driving and mows you down, maiming you and making sure you can't work again, suing them is probably the only way you'll be able to survive. And quite justified.
Damages are think meant to reimburse someone for genuine loss. If someone was messing with their iPod while driving and mows you down, maiming you and making sure you can't work again, suing them is probably the only way you'll be able to survive. And quite justified.
I would have said no until almost four years ago when an idiot ran into the back of me, I was stationary in a line of traffic, they were doing about 50. It wasn't an accident, it was negligence/incompetence and I feel that I fully deserved compensation for the pain and time it cost me.
My View -
I believe it is right to be entitled to claim for actual loss in terms of an accident that is not the claimants fault - but only actual loss.
So for example, I am riding my motorcycle legally and safely down the road, stereotype middle aged woman pulls straight out in front of me. I come off, damaging the bike and in this example, I break my leg.
I am self employed, so if I don't work, I don't get paid.
In this situation, I would find it fair to claim off her insurance for the bike to put back as it was before the accident, or the market value if written off. I would want any leathers paid for, and transportation to get into work until the leg has healed. If I was employed and the employer policy was that you did not lose pay for being off work, then just the bike, as no other loss would be incurred.
I do not find it acceptable, ever, for people to get money for "stress" after the accident. If someone is truely stressed after an incident, then how will £6,000 help? Instead people should get free counselling for their stress - I bet virtually nobody would take it up...
It is all very circumstantial, but in all cases where an individual got injured through their own doing, i.e tripping over a paving slab and trying to sue the council, they should be shot at dawn to protect them from breeding any further quite frankly.
There are of course many things to take into account, but the basic principle in my mine is that you claim only for what you have actually lost, and only if that is from somebody that caused an accident that there was no way whatsoever you could have prevented yourself.
I believe it is right to be entitled to claim for actual loss in terms of an accident that is not the claimants fault - but only actual loss.
So for example, I am riding my motorcycle legally and safely down the road, stereotype middle aged woman pulls straight out in front of me. I come off, damaging the bike and in this example, I break my leg.
I am self employed, so if I don't work, I don't get paid.
In this situation, I would find it fair to claim off her insurance for the bike to put back as it was before the accident, or the market value if written off. I would want any leathers paid for, and transportation to get into work until the leg has healed. If I was employed and the employer policy was that you did not lose pay for being off work, then just the bike, as no other loss would be incurred.
I do not find it acceptable, ever, for people to get money for "stress" after the accident. If someone is truely stressed after an incident, then how will £6,000 help? Instead people should get free counselling for their stress - I bet virtually nobody would take it up...
It is all very circumstantial, but in all cases where an individual got injured through their own doing, i.e tripping over a paving slab and trying to sue the council, they should be shot at dawn to protect them from breeding any further quite frankly.
There are of course many things to take into account, but the basic principle in my mine is that you claim only for what you have actually lost, and only if that is from somebody that caused an accident that there was no way whatsoever you could have prevented yourself.
If someone elses actions or negligence, that you could not reasonably foresee, causes you a financial loss then I don't see why someone shouldn't be entitled to compensation.
Where people fall down some stairs or slip on ice, I think they should give themselves a slap for not being able to walk rather than abusing the civil courts to line their own pockets.
Where people fall down some stairs or slip on ice, I think they should give themselves a slap for not being able to walk rather than abusing the civil courts to line their own pockets.
I belive that people who have genuine injures deserve compensation. i.e a freind was stationary in traffic and a car ran into the back of her at 40mph causing her terrible back pain and whiplash
unfortunetly there are also alot of people in the world who see having a minor minor accident as an oppertunity to claim and pay for there holiday ect
unfortunetly there are also alot of people in the world who see having a minor minor accident as an oppertunity to claim and pay for there holiday ect
Halb said:
Odie said:
For recovering uninsured loss - Yes
For injuries (covered by the nhs, if the nhs want to sue the at fault party then they should), mental anguish(sp) etc - No
You don't think a company who makes a faulty product should be penalised for causing injury?For injuries (covered by the nhs, if the nhs want to sue the at fault party then they should), mental anguish(sp) etc - No
Its a different matter though if trading standards or the Health and Safety executive wish to take them to court or issue a fine or other penalty for selling a dangerous product.
It is not for us to punish the companies by sueing them thats for the relevant bodies and the courts too do.
Using leaky batteries as an example, what i would expect is, replacement product, any medical expenses paid not covered by the nhs (plastic surgery perhaps), perhaps any loss of realistic earnings, HSE or trading standards to investigate and take an approriate course of action.
I wouldnt expect a cheque for 20grand from some no win no fee plebs.
The only thing I should come out with at the end, above what i started is anything the at fault company wishes to give me as a good will gesture.
The mother got £2.5k from a major supermarket after they left the floor wet with no warning signs whatsoever, leading her to fall and break a bone in her foot.
She had to take 2 weeks off work, couldn't drive for a month and still finds it painful. She probably will suffer from Arthritis. My father had to take time out from his own job to run her about for this time period.
In this case I think the amount is a fair amount, enough to compensate slightly for the injury (though she would rather have no money and no injury) and to warn the supermarket to put the sign up. There is no doubt that a warning sign in this case would have meant that injury would be avoided.
I am, however, very much of the opinion that amounts like £20k for similar injury would be ridiculous.
She had to take 2 weeks off work, couldn't drive for a month and still finds it painful. She probably will suffer from Arthritis. My father had to take time out from his own job to run her about for this time period.
In this case I think the amount is a fair amount, enough to compensate slightly for the injury (though she would rather have no money and no injury) and to warn the supermarket to put the sign up. There is no doubt that a warning sign in this case would have meant that injury would be avoided.
I am, however, very much of the opinion that amounts like £20k for similar injury would be ridiculous.
Edited by davidspooner on Thursday 31st December 10:36
Kermit power said:
I find it interesting that any time anyone mentions having had an accident and looking for compensation - or in the case of the Play.com thread, didn't even mention looking for compensation - the average PHer seems to start frothing at the mouth about compensation culture and how the person in question should accept that accidents happen and just grin and bear it.
So, for those PHers and others, where would you draw the line? When has someone been so negligent that they should be paying compensation?
There seems to be a belief on here that just because some pikeys claim totally unjustified compensation, anyone claiming compensation is a pikey. To me it's a mindset no different to the one that says just because some nutters drive through 30 zones at 90, all drivers breaking any speed limits are dangerous lunatics.
I've always viewed the compensation culture as the problem, accidents happen but incidents can be generally be avoided. My OH came off a friends horse earlier this year, it was an accident but she broke her back. She was wearing protective gear, everything had been done correctly so there was never a thought about compensation from anybody involved. We could have done with compensation, we're broke, but there was no blame to be assigned, it was an accident.So, for those PHers and others, where would you draw the line? When has someone been so negligent that they should be paying compensation?
There seems to be a belief on here that just because some pikeys claim totally unjustified compensation, anyone claiming compensation is a pikey. To me it's a mindset no different to the one that says just because some nutters drive through 30 zones at 90, all drivers breaking any speed limits are dangerous lunatics.
If it had been an incident, there would have been a blame/fault/liability somewhere, then compensation should be considered.
nb.
The amount of pondscum who before hearing the full details have told my OH, "Broken back, you should get a no win no fee Solicitor onto the owner of the horse."
Why? Did the Owner instruct the horse to spook?
Utter scum, but shockingly in the experience i've had this year, demographically more than likely to be utter scum who would call themselves Middle-class, own their own house, vote tory and moan about the state of the benefit rich layabout something for nothing state of the nation, all without realising their own hypocrisy.
Reactions have been eye-opening, and i have lost a lot of respect for a number of people.
wakster said:
davidspooner said:
The mother got £2.5k from a major supermarket after they left the floor wet with no warning signs whatsoever, leading her to fall and break a bone in her foot.
If you were to crash your car because of ice and there was no sign whose fault would it be?Menguin said:
wakster said:
davidspooner said:
The mother got £2.5k from a major supermarket after they left the floor wet with no warning signs whatsoever, leading her to fall and break a bone in her foot.
If you were to crash your car because of ice and there was no sign whose fault would it be?Maybe one should look where one is going, instead of assuming everyone will look after them?
I represent clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries (brain/spinal cord/severe orthopaedic). Their lives are changed beyond recognition because of the negligence of others.
It gets my goat when people bang on about 'conpensation culture' and 'accidents happen'. Of course accidents happen, that's part of life but pursuing a claim against someone who has injured you and caused your loss through an act of negligence is a very different matter.
I've seen no evidence that more claims for personal injuries are being made now more than any other time in the past, say, 10 years. The public perception, fuelled by the lower-end media no doubt has a different view. Let's not forget, we have a fault based system in this country and a claimant must prove negligence against the defendant. You don't get compo just because you're injured.
Oh and a word on the quantum of damages- you do not get £2.5m for whiplash, or for slipping in Tesco. Damages are based on guidance issued by the Judicial Studies Board and from recently decided cases. General Damages - for injuries, are on the whole pretty low in this country, Special Damages- out of pocket losses, cost of medical treatment, losses of earnings, etc, are of course based on quantifiable losses for both the past and future if they stem from the negligence of the defendant.
The big settlements the press picks up on, and let's face it- they never report that the majority of whiplash claims are worth c£1500, are generally for catastrophic injuries where the poor claimant requires care and assistance for the rest of his /her life- home adaptations, equipment etc.
Well done for raising this as a thread. Hopefully we might make some of the oiks out there see sense.
It gets my goat when people bang on about 'conpensation culture' and 'accidents happen'. Of course accidents happen, that's part of life but pursuing a claim against someone who has injured you and caused your loss through an act of negligence is a very different matter.
I've seen no evidence that more claims for personal injuries are being made now more than any other time in the past, say, 10 years. The public perception, fuelled by the lower-end media no doubt has a different view. Let's not forget, we have a fault based system in this country and a claimant must prove negligence against the defendant. You don't get compo just because you're injured.
Oh and a word on the quantum of damages- you do not get £2.5m for whiplash, or for slipping in Tesco. Damages are based on guidance issued by the Judicial Studies Board and from recently decided cases. General Damages - for injuries, are on the whole pretty low in this country, Special Damages- out of pocket losses, cost of medical treatment, losses of earnings, etc, are of course based on quantifiable losses for both the past and future if they stem from the negligence of the defendant.
The big settlements the press picks up on, and let's face it- they never report that the majority of whiplash claims are worth c£1500, are generally for catastrophic injuries where the poor claimant requires care and assistance for the rest of his /her life- home adaptations, equipment etc.
Well done for raising this as a thread. Hopefully we might make some of the oiks out there see sense.
- Compensation was originally considered by individuals before the days of insurance companies, as an offer of good will. The 'insurer' that was paying was giving compensation on the grounds that their client was Honorable and that they were covering the claim on their behalf. This could be the same person or another individual that had previously agreed to honour any monetary compensation within that family or business.
- The term 'Good Will' derived from a business term in 17th century England, which implied fiscal compensatory benefits or extra value not included visibly with the sale of a business (typically farming) where the seller was offering un-provable benefits in kind to the buyer. These benefits were not provable on paper for covered under contract, but it was down to the honesty and integrity of the seller who was assuring the buyer that these benefits were to be expected.
- Restitution, was the name termed from the recovery of compensation plus any costs associated with the original claim, and it was from here that 'bolt-ons' of a claim first came about.
The question I would ask is: "Although I am entitled to claim, what is a moral and honorable claim, and what is extortion over and above the basic claim for recompense?"
That is the question!
Last week a work colleague was waiting in queued traffic and was hit from behind by a bus. I don't think I'd hold it against him if he claimed compensation.
I should add that I don't know whether or not he will claim but he has already been to a couple of physio sessions, so it seems likely.
I should add that I don't know whether or not he will claim but he has already been to a couple of physio sessions, so it seems likely.
I was taken off my motorbike by a 73yr old pensioner at a junction. He was charged at the scene with undue care and attention. I am a self employed, shopkeeper and let some properties.
18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
Big_Dog said:
I was taken off my motorbike by a 73yr old pensioner at a junction. He was charged at the scene with undue care and attention. I am a self employed, shopkeeper and let some properties.
18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
Was the pensioner (why is that relevant) convicted?18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
Big_Dog said:
I was taken off my motorbike by a 73yr old pensioner at a junction. He was charged at the scene with undue care and attention. I am a self employed, shopkeeper and let some properties.
18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
And that is the crux of "Actual Loss" - if you are claiming for what you will actually lose, I don't think people will have a problem with that.18 months now and still cant work due to my injuries. According to my surgeon I will be unable to work as a shopkeeper again and at 49 will need to retrain and seek alternative employment. We have needed to employ a cleaner, gardener, maintenance person for the properties amongst other stuff I can no longer do.
Should I tell my solicitor I dont need the money and that his insurance company need it more than me and my family.
What would you be doing? My future is a lot less certain than it was 19 months ago.
If you are claiming for actual loss plus £15k for "hurt feelings and emotional stress" - then that is a pathetic claim.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff