Case Law Needed

[phillvr6]

As some may know, a couple of months ago I was knocked off my motorbike. To cut a long story short,

I was in the right hand lane of a two lane single carriageway passing stationary traffic in the left hand lane. (Clapham High Street)

I slowed to around 10mph ish as I approached a side street to the left (Nelsons Row) as there was a prison lorry stopped before the junction and I was wary that a car could be edging out.

As it happened, the lorry had flashed a car out of the junction (to turn right), the car didn't check the lane I was travelling in was clear and accelerated out of the sideroad. I avoided him but as he had not seen me he drove in the my bike writting it off.

My issue is this, the company dealing with my case (Minster Law)keep sending me case law where the motorcyclist has effectively made an additional lane to pass the stationary traffic, where the motorbike hits the car and where the car is edging out. They keep trying to get me to agree to go 50/50 and these people are supposed to be looking after my interests!

So, can anyone suggest any relevant case law which accuratelyt mirrors the events leading to the collision.

I was travelling in a designated lane, not making an additional lane.

The car drove in to me, I did not ride in to the bike.

The car did not edge out, it accelerated.

Any help or advice appreciated.

Thanks,

Phill

[phillvr6]

Ian_S said:

Your company must be taking Powell v Moody into account where the bike was overtaking down the middle of the road creating his own lane, and the bike was held 80% at fault, you need to explain that you were in your own lane, and had right of way. There may be slight liability on yourself to be wary of overtaking larger vehicles near a junction where your view is obstructed but i would expect it to be a lot less than 50%.
Sounds like they are being lazy.

Bingo.

I have explained this to them a few times now and it was also clearly recorded in my liability questionaire.

I have my doubts as to whether the individual dealing my case has actually read the information I had provided.

Does it make any difference that he hit me as opposed to me riding in to him. My representative tells me it doesn't, I find this hard to believe.

Thanks,

Phill

[phillvr6]

Ian_S said:

Another case is Worsfold v Howe (1980)this is where the bike was in its own lane on the right similar to your situation but the right lane was for turning right only further up. The bike was effectively jumping the queue of stationary traffic, at a speed of 10-30mph, judge held 50/50 as bike travelling too fast past stationary traffic, and car gone beyond his line of vision.

Thanks for trying but theres no way I was going to quickly, much slower and I would have been stopped. The collision was at such a low speed that the bike just went over and didnt slide once it hit the road.

[phillvr6]

Silent1 said:

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

If this is an option I might just do that. Remind me whats the name of the pistonheader who I need to speak with?

[phillvr6]

mr_spock said:

Minster are, IMHO, dreadful. I was hit in my car whilst stationary, with a witness, they settled 50/50 without my approval. Useless morons.

I'm getting that impression myself, although they're supposed to be looking after my interests, they keep trying to scare me in to going 50/50 by refering to irelevant case law. I have told them verbally, and in writing that they are not to settle 50/50.

Does anyone know where I stand with getting rid of them?

[phillvr6]

s2art said:

In Davis vs. Shrogin,2006, the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."

This has changed case law on the subject. If your solicitors are unaware of it I suggest you look for better solicitors.

You superstar! Thanks.

[phillvr6]

Powell v Moody 1966 - Not relevant as the bike was making a 3rd lane of traffic, the car was edging out and the bike hit the car.

Leeson Vs Bevis & Tolchard 1972 - Not relevant as it was a single lane road, the bike was making a second lane and the bike hit the car.

The 3rd part refered to Farley Vs Buckley 2006 - no relevance whatsoever as it involved a scooter passing a lorry which was turning left and letting a car out the junction he was turning in to.

Whilst Davis Vs Schrogin was a different scenario, surely the principal still stands. i.e. there was no way for me to avoid the car which drove in to the side of my bike?

[phillvr6]

Silent1 said:

phillvr6 said:

Silent1 said:

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

If this is an option I might just do that. Remind me whats the name of the pistonheader who I need to speak with?

Anniesdad He'll help you, without a doubt one of the best guys i've met.

Ta, I've fired an email off top him.

[phillvr6]

Cheers, I did show caution and had the car driver edged out the collision would not have happened. I avoided him and he drove in to me.

I have an independant witness who was behind me on a scooter, he has confirmed my version of events. The lorry driver said at the time he was speaking to his passenger at the time of the crash so could not give a statement. At no time has it been suggested I was speeding. The damage to the bike and pictures of the scene demonstrate that the bike was practically at a stand still when the car hit it.

As far as I'm concerned it is 100 percent his fault, I slowed for the junction and was doing around 10mph, He entered my lane without looking and without showing caution. I will not
be rolling over on this one!

[phillvr6]

Well a brief update.Having called my insurance company on Friday to explain that I was not convinced Minster were not looking after my interests, I received a letter on Saturday morning from Minster explaining that my representative had changed due to administrative issues. I have no idea what the exact reason is but I guess they have either labled me as a trouble maker, or have looked more closely at my case and realised that my origional representative was incompetant. I'll beo on the phone to them tomorrow to ensure my new representative is fully briefed. Its never simple is it!

[phillvr6]

A quick update, It would apperar someone from Minster reads Pistonheads.

I've just had a call from their Head of Specialist Claims. She was extremely helpful , and will be overseeing my case. Fingers crossed, things are on the up. I just need to get some pictures of the road in question now.

I'll continue to provide updates as and when.

Phill

[phillvr6]

Well,
We've not really got any further; the additional info was issued at the end of last year. The 3rd party were chased at the end of Feb, confirmed their customer had provided a response and said they were in the process of reviewing it.

5 weeks later and they are saying it’s in a backlog and each week they say they will respond within a week.

To complicate matters further my case has been transferred to another handler (the 3rd so far). I have chased her for the past two weeks and finally spoken to her today it transpires that despite assurances that there will be no delay or interruption in the handling of my file she has yet to review my case due to having 300 to get through.

I'm now pushing to start legal proceedings but being told that in order to do that the 3rd party insurers have to nominate a solicitor and if we issue a 21 day notice letter telling them to do this it is likely to get caught in the same backlog as the rest of the file.

So in summary I've got to wait for my 3rd handler to get her head around my case and then hope we can get the 3rd party insurers to pull their fingers out by dealing with them over the phone.

I'm now waiting for a call back from the Head of specialist claims who proved very helpful last year. In the meantime, any suggestions as to how I can accelerate this process would be gratefully received.

Thanks,

Phill

[phillvr6]

I've spoken with their head of specialist claims again and am expecting a call back tomorrow so we'll see what comes of that.

If starting proceedings myself is a realistic option its one I'm willing to persue.

[phillvr6]

Noger said:

p.s. this would be easier in a single thread

You right, however a lot of helpfull people who read SPL don't read GG and visa versa.

I've been paid out for the bike less £400 excess. I'm also still out of pocket for my helmet, train travel when I didn't have a bike. I've also got a claim in for personal injury as I had a bad arm for 3 weeks.

However my main issues is liability, I don't want to be lumbered with an at fault claim whn he drove in to me.

[phillvr6]

Quick update, I've been advised that the letter giving the 3rd party insurers 21 days notice of commencing court proceedings will go out today.

I'll let you know what happens in a few weeks time.