Accident compensation enquiry

[vickster]

He says the police attended

It seems very odd that the ambulance didn't take him to hospital following a head injury? Refuse to go?

 

[CopperBrompton]

The CTC's solicitors are Gordon & Slater, but you don't need to be a member: they will take you on on exactly the same terms either way (actually, you get a slightly better deal as a non-member as the number for non-CTC members is a freephone one while the CTC line isn't!): http://www.slatergordon.co.uk

As others have said, they won't take on a case that's likely to see less than £1000 in personal injury, but you've already been offered more than this so they should at least be happy to have a phone call with you. They may, though, feel that the offer is about right - but definitely worth a call.

 

[ianrauk]

The CTC's solicitors are Gordon & Slater, but you don't need to be a member: they will take you on on exactly the same terms either way (actually, you get a slightly better deal as a non-member as the number for non-CTC members is a freephone one while the CTC line isn't!): http://www.slatergordon.co.uk

As others have said, they won't take on a case that's likely to see less than £1000 in personal injury, but you've already been offered more than this so they should at least be happy to have a phone call with you. They may, though, feel that the offer is about right - but definitely worth a call.

Sorry to be pedantic bud... it's Slater & Gordon

But agree with everything else you have said. S&G will only take it on if they feel if it's worth it.

 

[glenn forger]

If the driver noticed you weaving all over the shop how the blinking flip did she rear end you? Any action from the police? Good luck.

 

[vickster]

British cycling use LeighDay. Assume you can contact direct

 

[Sharky]

Lots of good advice already, but as they have already made you an offer, it is just a case of deciding what the amount should be. When I was unfortunate, I received £9k for broken bike, collar bone, teeth, ribs, a few stitches and about 4 weeks off work. Did get a free ride in a helicopter though!

You are dealing with a claim negotiator and they expect to be negotiated.

A friend of mine also had an unfortunate case. Sometime after the crash, he thought his leg was hurting more than it should, so went back and had it x-rayed and they found a fracture, which took a long time to fully heal. So just make sure you know the full extent of the damage before you settle.

Hope you have fully recovered
Keith

 

[Crankarm]

Lots of good advice already, but as they have already made you an offer, it is just a case of deciding what the amount should be. When I was unfortunate, I received £9k for broken bike, collar bone, teeth, ribs, a few stitches and about 4 weeks off work. Did get a free ride in a helicopter though!

You are dealing with a claim negotiator and they expect to be negotiated.

A friend of mine also had an unfortunate case. Sometime after the crash, he thought his leg was hurting more than it should, so went back and had it x-rayed and they found a fracture, which took a long time to fully heal. So just make sure you know the full extent of the damage before you settle.

Hope you have fully recovered
Keith

£9k seems rather low for the losses and injuries you suffered ……….. Did you have a solicitor represent you?

 

[Sharky]

£9k seems rather low for the losses and injuries you suffered ……….. Did you have a solicitor represent you?

yes - the ctc
The 4 weeks off bit - I was able to work from home, so wasn't stopped any money from my firm. I could have counter claimed and I did from the initial offer, but to get more would have taken longer and I decided to take the offer and to try and forget the accident. This was all back in 2008 and I'm still riding.

And would you believe it, but 18 months after this accident, I was out in January on the club run and misjudged a bend and came off, breaking my other collar bone. This time all my own fault.

And after these two and a couple of other minor spills - still riding!

Cheers
Keith

 

[format]

^^^^
This.


Get legal advice. Oh - and the bollocks from Admiral about a helmet is just that, complete bollocks.

Eh, not entirely.
Smith vs Finch 2009 and Reynolds vs Strutt & Parker 2011 are two cases that show that not wearing a cycling helmet can in the right circumstances, be used to show contributory negligence.

 

[format]

No they aren't. In Smith v Finch, the judge's comment were obiter dicta, and in Reynold v Strutt & Parker the circumstances were very specific and related to employers liability.

I'm not saying that Smith vs Finch provides iron clad precedent or anything, but it seems silly to dismiss the potential by saying it's bollocks. In terms of interfering with a compensation claim, I don't think it's bollocks at all, and I'm not alone in that view. I recently talked to a lawyer with decades of experience in PI and RTA cases and she agrees, as does this law blog.

Here's another snippet from a different blog

Personal Injury law also comes down in favour of wearing helmets. A claimant, if injured whilst not wearing a helmet, must show that the helmet would not have protected the head in that particular situation. If the claimant cannot show that, then even if liability for the accident is admitted by the defendant, damages claimed could be reduced. The Judge is likely to find that the claimant has contributed to their injuries but not taking care of themselves. The judge in Phethean-Hubble v Coles 2011 held that the appropriate starting point was to accept that a cyclist who failed to wear a helmet ran the risk of contributing to his injuries, following the decision in Smith v Finch 2009. Although there was evidence regarding the potential benefit of helmets in head injury cases and the generally beneficial nature of wearing helmets, in this particular case as there was more than one impact that caused severe head injuries it was actually held that wearing a helmet would have had a minimal effect. So each case depends on its facts.

source

and another

Personal injury case law on cycling, most recently, Smith v Finch [2009] EWHC 53 QB (discussed in detail on this blog) also suggests that the failure to wear a helmet when cycling casually on the roads could amount to contributory negligence. Given that finding, it should come as little surprise that this principle is extended to sport:

source

 

[vickster]

One of the posters in this thread has been offered reduced compensation for a head injury as no helmet worn so definitely the other side may well try to argue such

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/broken-neck-and-back.160861/

(I am passing no comment on the wearing of helmets or this possibility either way)

 

[Markymark]

Isn't that a case of insurance companies trying any old rubbish to reduce a claim that would be simply thrown out if it got to court?

 

[vickster]

Not necessarily according to format's post

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Eh, not entirely.
Smith vs Finch 2009 and Reynolds vs Strutt & Parker 2011 are two cases that show that not wearing a cycling helmet can in the right circumstances, be used to show contributory negligence.

This is why I've just bought a helmet and I farking hate the bastard things.

 

[format]

We can all google...

...but the art is understanding what is googled rather than simply reproducing snippets.

We can all google, we can all reproduce, but it seems no one does condescension quite like you.

Not wearing a helmet may be determined to be contributory negligence

This is only point I was trying to make. I'm glad you agree with me.

but a respondent could only justify a reduction in damages where they could prove that the injury would have been avoided or reduced by a helmet.

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I posted it in the first place. Until the OP has had his injury evaluated there is every chance that his (head) injury could have been avoided or reduced by a helmet.

Instead it's a blanket statement on one aspect of contributory negligence designed to scare people.

Agree with this, but that's not to say it has no basis in fact. Someone reading your post might go away under the impression that the presence of a helmet has no bearing on a civil case, which is not true. I was simply trying to provide balance.

If you want a good explanation of the case law as it stands, I would recommend the talk given by Martin Porter (the 'Cycling Silk') to the APIL transport group in 2012.

I've read it before, and there's nothing in there which contradicts my point.