Getting sued for 50k
Discussion
In January 2014 a schoolkid (aged 14) walked out between 2 parked cars and my wife drove into him. It was a low speed incident, approx 10 mph, as the location was around 20 m from a set of traffice lights. The boy was hit by the car left to centre of the front of the car. The police were involved and my wife took the boy to the local Doctors surgery.
The police said the incident was not the fault of my wife. But she had to contact them after a couple of weeks as the boys mother managed to get our home phone number.
In turn the police visited us after a few weeks to advise us that they had to tell the boys mother to stop contacting them, pushing them to charge my wife with a driving offence.
My wife stopped driving shortly after the incident, and her car is now SORNed.
Move on to May 2015, and my wife receives a court summons stating she is being sued for £50k for the incident. They have used a No Win No Fee lawer. My wifes car insurer from the time has appointed a lawyer to defend the claim.
My wife has been advised that the claim is likley to succeed, as courts normally go in favour of pedestrians. The level of compensation will be decided in due course.
So my question is, does my wife have any recourse to claim compensation? She no longer drives because of this incident, and this restricts a lot of what we do as a family.
The police said the incident was not the fault of my wife. But she had to contact them after a couple of weeks as the boys mother managed to get our home phone number.
In turn the police visited us after a few weeks to advise us that they had to tell the boys mother to stop contacting them, pushing them to charge my wife with a driving offence.
My wife stopped driving shortly after the incident, and her car is now SORNed.
Move on to May 2015, and my wife receives a court summons stating she is being sued for £50k for the incident. They have used a No Win No Fee lawer. My wifes car insurer from the time has appointed a lawyer to defend the claim.
My wife has been advised that the claim is likley to succeed, as courts normally go in favour of pedestrians. The level of compensation will be decided in due course.
So my question is, does my wife have any recourse to claim compensation? She no longer drives because of this incident, and this restricts a lot of what we do as a family.
5STM5 said:
Damaged knee tendons, he had restricted movement in one leg for 3 weeks. The rest is psychological.
Sounds high if he has no permanent loss. Some guides from a random ambulance chaser here (IANAL):http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/compensatio...
The Spruce goose said:
out of your control, you are not getting sued, insurance are.
it is one big mutual masturbation industry, where they all win, so forget and move on, they don't work to commonsense laws.
Agreed, but my wife has to pay the excess and she no longer drives because of the incident. it is one big mutual masturbation industry, where they all win, so forget and move on, they don't work to commonsense laws.
I can well remember back in the early to mid nineties listening to a radio programme where there was an argument for and against the allowing of American style win or no win type of lawyers.
The pro brigade dismissed the old school and their warnings of excess pay outs, stating the UK would never get to the point where suing someone would be as easy and as profitable as it was in the US. .......
I guess twenty plus years later, those from the pro brigade who were then reasonably well off have watched their salaries explode.
The pro brigade dismissed the old school and their warnings of excess pay outs, stating the UK would never get to the point where suing someone would be as easy and as profitable as it was in the US. .......
I guess twenty plus years later, those from the pro brigade who were then reasonably well off have watched their salaries explode.
Edited by Wozy68 on Friday 5th June 21:27
5STM5 said:
So my question is, does my wife have any recourse to claim compensation?
From whom do you think she could claim compensation? The only other party to her accident was a 14yr old boy; while it may have been his fault, he's unlikely to have any relevant insurance or sufficient money to pay her compensation even if he was found liable (which is a very long shot in itself).Jobbo said:
5STM5 said:
So my question is, does my wife have any recourse to claim compensation?
From whom do you think she could claim compensation? The only other party to her accident was a 14yr old boy; while it may have been his fault, he's unlikely to have any relevant insurance or sufficient money to pay her compensation even if he was found liable (which is a very long shot in itself).Although the injured party may have some form of contributory negligence, the OPs insurance can deal with his losses and injury (though 50k sounds high based on the information presented)
If the OPs wife now has issues based on that negligence by a child... then I empathise (as a father, I understand that hitting a child must be distressing, but also that it is a freak event) - but she also has a need to move on; if counselling is required it is at her cost, not the injured party.
TL;DR - stuff happens, move on.
You've done the best you can by passing the proceedings onto your insurers to deal with.
It's unfortunate but most claims involving pedestrians stepping onto the road go in the way of the pedestrian. It may well be that liability has been decided and it's the level of damages being disputed. The claim sounds like it's pleaded up to the value of £50,000 rather than £50,000 on the dot. Also, given that it's an infant involved, any damages agreed have to be approved by the Court anyway to ensure that little Johnny gets awarded the right amount of money.
If your wife has a claim, it will only be successful if a degree of liability attaches to the pedestrian. Ie if he is found 25% at fault, she will only be able to claim 25% of her damages. Then you have to consider whether a child will have the sufficient funds to pay any damages agreed/awarded. Proabably not.
It's unfortunate but most claims involving pedestrians stepping onto the road go in the way of the pedestrian. It may well be that liability has been decided and it's the level of damages being disputed. The claim sounds like it's pleaded up to the value of £50,000 rather than £50,000 on the dot. Also, given that it's an infant involved, any damages agreed have to be approved by the Court anyway to ensure that little Johnny gets awarded the right amount of money.
If your wife has a claim, it will only be successful if a degree of liability attaches to the pedestrian. Ie if he is found 25% at fault, she will only be able to claim 25% of her damages. Then you have to consider whether a child will have the sufficient funds to pay any damages agreed/awarded. Proabably not.
5STM5 said:
So my question is, does my wife have any recourse to claim compensation? She no longer drives because of this incident, and this restricts a lot of what we do as a family.
She could contact a no-win no-fee solicitor and see what they say.In theory she could sue the lad. The parents' home insurance policy (if they have one) might provide cover (householder's liability to 3rd parties).
5STM5 said:
Agreed, but my wife has to pay the excess ..
No she doesn't. Excess is for own damage. Edited by Sheepshanks on Friday 5th June 22:00
You're not being sued, your insurer is. The fact that the court papers are lodged against your wife is an old trick, but technically the right course of action. She simply instructs her insurers and they will deal. A claim involving a minor has to be settled via a court to ensure they are satisfied with the proposed settlement.
You (or your insurer) will not win fighting a claim against a pedestrian. They have even less chance against a child, who is not legally responsible for many of their actions.
The amount being claimed is irrelevant, the court will settle on a figure based on well established legal precedent and medical studies.
The idea that insurers don't lose out in cases like this is plain daft, of course they do as money leaves the insurance system and goes to solicitors and (quite rightly) any injured innocent third party.
However, the daftest idea of the lot is the idea that you can sue someone because your wife has given up driving, let alone a 14 year old child. The narcissism on PH knows no bounds at times. How much of this ridiculous idea is about "revenge" for trying to get your wife charged, even though it has no bearing on a civil claim at all?
You (or your insurer) will not win fighting a claim against a pedestrian. They have even less chance against a child, who is not legally responsible for many of their actions.
The amount being claimed is irrelevant, the court will settle on a figure based on well established legal precedent and medical studies.
The idea that insurers don't lose out in cases like this is plain daft, of course they do as money leaves the insurance system and goes to solicitors and (quite rightly) any injured innocent third party.
However, the daftest idea of the lot is the idea that you can sue someone because your wife has given up driving, let alone a 14 year old child. The narcissism on PH knows no bounds at times. How much of this ridiculous idea is about "revenge" for trying to get your wife charged, even though it has no bearing on a civil claim at all?
Jasandjules said:
5STM5 said:
Agreed, but my wife has to pay the excess and she no longer drives because of the incident.
Well, it may be appropriate to counterclaim for the negligence of the brat in stepping out and causing your wife to cease driving.........Oh and no excess on a TP claim at all, so his wife doesn't have to pay anything,a s Sheepsjphanks correctly stated earlier.
LoonR1 said:
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Someone needs to teach these dopey / arrogant kids a lesson.We got done some years ago when a teenage lad rode his bike off the pavement into my wife's car. Police did her for careless driving and she wouldn't fight it. Women are weird about these things - she wouldn't drive the car again.
There's no reason at all why your wife can't sue the child; as for whether she'll win that would depend on whether she has suffered loss as a result of his negligence.
Either check with a no win no fee solicitor or use the legal expenses cover which seems to be bundled with many insurance policies these days. The parents may well need to pay up in the child is found negligent, and their home insurance cover will most likely meet 3rd party liabilities (I know - I've used it when my child was negligent albeit in very different circumstances)
What's the chances of suing the child for the increased insurance premiums resulting from his claim?!
Either check with a no win no fee solicitor or use the legal expenses cover which seems to be bundled with many insurance policies these days. The parents may well need to pay up in the child is found negligent, and their home insurance cover will most likely meet 3rd party liabilities (I know - I've used it when my child was negligent albeit in very different circumstances)
What's the chances of suing the child for the increased insurance premiums resulting from his claim?!
LoonR1 said:
From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Oh and no excess on a TP claim at all, so his wife doesn't have to pay anything,a s Sheepsjphanks correctly stated earlier.
Indeed. However a No Win No Fee firm may well withdraw upon receipt of a detailed counterclaim which exceeds the value of their ambulance chasing.Oh and no excess on a TP claim at all, so his wife doesn't have to pay anything,a s Sheepsjphanks correctly stated earlier.
Regardless of who has to pay, my view is that those who bring such claims should be persuaded not to in future.
OP's wife will have had to pay her excess if her own car was damaged in the collision. Though if I'd just run down a child, that would rank fairly low on my list of worries.
As she's likely to be found liable for the accident, as her insurers have already suggested, she won't be getting compo from the boy or anyone else.
As she's likely to be found liable for the accident, as her insurers have already suggested, she won't be getting compo from the boy or anyone else.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff