Police officer and Met being sued following collision
Discussion
I read this report today and to be honest I am utterly bewildered, society is getting increasingly litigious, but really, WTAF?
Police officer currently facing a personal law suit for a collision when responding to an emergency incident. He was on blues, siren and bull horn, about to pass through a green light at 23mph, admittedly in a 20mph zone. He had slowed and was keeping watch on a pedestrian who looked as if they were about to step out, when another pedestrian stepped out in front of him against the red do not cross light for pedestrians. He braked to 13mph but a collision resulted and the pedestrian died 8 months later.
7 years later, he and the Met are being sued for £450,000 by the family on the grounds that if he'd spotted the pedestrian 0.64 seconds earlier or driven at 18 mph the collision could have been avoided. The £450,000 is to cover £70,000 general damages for his death, around £240,000 to cover inheritance tax resulting from his passing, and £130,000 the family claim he would have gifted them toward buying property and private school fees.
Whilst sympathy for any death goes to those left behind, imvho the family and their lawyers should take a cold hard look in the mirror.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/police...
Police officer currently facing a personal law suit for a collision when responding to an emergency incident. He was on blues, siren and bull horn, about to pass through a green light at 23mph, admittedly in a 20mph zone. He had slowed and was keeping watch on a pedestrian who looked as if they were about to step out, when another pedestrian stepped out in front of him against the red do not cross light for pedestrians. He braked to 13mph but a collision resulted and the pedestrian died 8 months later.
7 years later, he and the Met are being sued for £450,000 by the family on the grounds that if he'd spotted the pedestrian 0.64 seconds earlier or driven at 18 mph the collision could have been avoided. The £450,000 is to cover £70,000 general damages for his death, around £240,000 to cover inheritance tax resulting from his passing, and £130,000 the family claim he would have gifted them toward buying property and private school fees.
Whilst sympathy for any death goes to those left behind, imvho the family and their lawyers should take a cold hard look in the mirror.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/police...
the IHT is a non starter - as surely that would have been paid out at some point - or are they arguing he would have found a way around it if he had lived longer.
Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
The Selfish Gene said:
the IHT is a non starter - as surely that would have been paid out at some point - or are they arguing he would have found a way around it if he had lived longer.
Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
The family are trying to say that if he had lived 4 years later, the 'gifts' he had made his family would have fallen out of his estate under the 7 year rule, therefore wouldn't have been liable for IHT. IMHO they money grabbing swindlers, along with their lawyers.Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
Article said:
On behalf of Mr Mills’s children and grandchildren, his estate is claiming £70,000 general damages for his death, around £240,000 to cover the tax implications of his passing in relation to inheritance tax (IHT), and around £130,000 his family claim he would have gifted them toward buying property and private school fees.
Mr Mills had transferred a £2 million house in Hurlingham Road, Fulham, to his son John in 2015. His early death left the estate liable for £192,130 IHT on the house and £55,182 on the rest of his fortune, which the family say would otherwise not be payable.
Mr Mills had transferred a £2 million house in Hurlingham Road, Fulham, to his son John in 2015. His early death left the estate liable for £192,130 IHT on the house and £55,182 on the rest of his fortune, which the family say would otherwise not be payable.
Mammasaid said:
The Selfish Gene said:
the IHT is a non starter - as surely that would have been paid out at some point - or are they arguing he would have found a way around it if he had lived longer.
Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
The family are trying to say that if he had lived 4 years later, the 'gifts' he had made his family would have fallen out of his estate under the 7 year rule, therefore wouldn't have been liable for IHT. IMHO they money grabbing swindlers, along with their lawyers.Obviously ridiculous claim, and should be thrown out based on the details in the OP. AS no wrong doing of the driver of the car, policeman or otherwise
Article said:
On behalf of Mr Mills’s children and grandchildren, his estate is claiming £70,000 general damages for his death, around £240,000 to cover the tax implications of his passing in relation to inheritance tax (IHT), and around £130,000 his family claim he would have gifted them toward buying property and private school fees.
Mr Mills had transferred a £2 million house in Hurlingham Road, Fulham, to his son John in 2015. His early death left the estate liable for £192,130 IHT on the house and £55,182 on the rest of his fortune, which the family say would otherwise not be payable.
Mr Mills had transferred a £2 million house in Hurlingham Road, Fulham, to his son John in 2015. His early death left the estate liable for £192,130 IHT on the house and £55,182 on the rest of his fortune, which the family say would otherwise not be payable.
Can't imagine what the officer is going through, probably blame themself and stressed by this whole thing, all for trying to get to some incident at request of public in an underpaid and commonly thankless job. Sad turn of events.
The way this country is going I wouldn’t blame any officer for deciding not to rush to an emergency and instead drive in a normal leisurely manner using blues & twos when appropriate but choosing not to go through any red lights.
All they need to say is that they didn’t think it was safe to drive any quicker. This might lead to someone complaining that had the police got there sooner than a life could have been saved. Again, another example of the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
Maybe this needs to happen?
All they need to say is that they didn’t think it was safe to drive any quicker. This might lead to someone complaining that had the police got there sooner than a life could have been saved. Again, another example of the police being dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
Maybe this needs to happen?
Edited by The Gauge on Thursday 8th February 16:42
It beggars belief that this is even a thing. Hopefully it gets thrown out in court and the family have to pick up all costs including those of the defence…
Sorry for their loss of course but accidents do occur and, based on the information provided, I don’t think the policeman did anything wrong whereas the deceased did?
Sorry for their loss of course but accidents do occur and, based on the information provided, I don’t think the policeman did anything wrong whereas the deceased did?
Edited by 2HFL on Thursday 8th February 18:38
blueg33 said:
Mojooo said:
Seasonal Hero said:
blueg33 said:
It bugs me that some barristers take on cases like this.
Cab rank rule. FiF said:
pedestrian stepped out in front of him against the red do not cross light for pedestrians.
Now if only someone had taught him/her to look both ways before crossing the road...I wonder if he was using a phone whilst walking, and/or had music stuffed in his ears? Many people do this, oblivious to the world around them. Hopefully the dashcam will show it if they were.
Simpo Two said:
Now if only someone had taught him/her to look both ways before crossing the road...
I wonder if he was using a phone whilst walking, and/or had music stuffed in his ears? Many people do this, oblivious to the world around them. Hopefully the dashcam will show it if they were.
Even so just to walk out into the road is erm, unwise. To do it against a red crossing light and in front of an emergency vehicle on Blue and Twos…I wonder if he was using a phone whilst walking, and/or had music stuffed in his ears? Many people do this, oblivious to the world around them. Hopefully the dashcam will show it if they were.
Words fail me.
Mojooo said:
Does that apply to civil cases?
I believe it does yes. I’ve not heard of it applying only to criminal cases because it attends to justice and that can be both civil and criminal. It’s defined as obligation of a barrister to accept any work in a field in which they profess themselves competent to practise, at a court at which they normally appear, and at their usual rates.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff