What to do?

Message

Myrkk · #1 Post by **Myrkk** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:40 am

The claim for the copper hitting me in July 05 still hasn't been settled and he is willing to go to court. I was willing to go to court but my insurance co. keep going on about how it will go in his favour 'cause he is a traffic cop and is a fine upstanding member of the community and his witnesses are very eloquent. They've also said that roundabout accidents are very difficult to prove and if I could see he was travelling too fast then I should have seen him in time to stop...

In short they are trying to persuade me not to go to court. I don't know what to do? I did want to go to court 'cause I know I was in the right but the thought stresses me beyond belief....... mainly because I don't want to see the copper again, both him and his wife were very abusive.

So on one hand I want the right outcome but on the other hand it looks like that won't happen anyway and I'll stress myself for nothing........

Advice please, what would you do?

Dinsdale Piranah · #2 Post by **Dinsdale Piranah** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:27 am

Is your legal assistance covered in your insurance?

T.C. · #3 Post by **T.C.** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:00 pm

If your insurers or legal representatives have done their job properly, the issue regarding going to court should not even be an issue regardless of what or who the defendant is.

Just because the defendant is a traffic cop doesn't mean that he is immune from making mistakes, but what they do do is hide behind their background, job, qualifications, call them what you will and make out that they are whiter than white.

In my experience, if it goes to court the judge will be more sympathetic towards you than the copper, and if the evidence is good, then there is nothing to fear.

It sounds like your insurers or legal reps are losing their bottle and are answering to the accountants rather than the client they are representing, namely "YOU"!!!!

BikerGran · #4 Post by **BikerGran** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:59 pm

if I could see he was travelling too fast then I should have seen him in time to stop...

I can't see the logic of that - surely the fact that he was travelling too fast is the reason you didn't see him in time? Of course I don't know the circumstances, and anyway TC may say I'm wrong, he's the expert. Did you pull out onto the RAB and get hit by the bloke?

Nevertheless, if you really can't face it, it's not worth stressing yourself out for. Will your insurers pay anyway?

Myrkk · #5 Post by **Myrkk** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:10 pm

it was 5.30pm [rush hour traffic] queues on all 3 approaches to the rounabout. I was turning right. The entrance to the right had 2 approach lanes, nearside is a left only turn and offside a straight across turn. the left hand turn was queued traffic the other lane was empty. It looked clear so I started to go around the roundabout [ a painted dot approx. 7' across and slightly off centre of the junction if you were coming from the direction the copper was coming from. As I got halfway across I saw a car peel out from the queue and bomb it towards the roundabout, he hit me as I was straddling the full roundabout which meant he was trying to go around the wrong side of the roundabout.

A couple of things......... the locus report shows everyone [ bar me

] goes around that roundabout the wrong side when coming from the direction the copper was coming from.

I was going incredibly slowly....... pull push technique doesn't allow you to go fast around roundabouts........ try it.......

My witness is an ex copper [30 yrs in london] BUT he worked for the same franchise I worked for at the time....... I'd only spoken to him twice prior to that but........

The coppers car was not roadworthy indicator covers smashed etc and he wouldn't let me take photos of the damage, wouldn't tell me his insurance company and has since said I hit him and the damage would support that....... the damage was to my offside wing......... so he obviously hit me.

so the short answer is yes I did pull out in front of him but he wasn't there when I did.

I did ask my witness to be 100% honest and if I was to blame I'd own up, but he says the same as me......... twas the other blokes fault.

Hope the above makes sense........ the whole thing is stressing me big time. I think part of the reason the insurance co. have suddenly decided to do something is because I've changed my insurance to another company.

T.C. · #6 Post by **T.C.** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:03 pm

Speed in itself should not be the deciding issue in a civil case as was declared under case law quite a few years ago, unless is has a direct contributory factor, which it sounds like may the case here.

Two things spring to mind, firstly why did the copper prohibit the taking of photographs? Dodgy ground, as he had no power to prohibit such pictures unless it is in the public interest rather than his own. You can use that to your advantage.

Secondly, although unless there was injury he is not required by law to provide his insurance details, why is he so off hand with this simple request?

Although you may have pulled out onto the roundabout in front of him, if your assessment at the time was such that it was safe and clear to enter and this is supported by witnesses, then it will be for the coppers lawyers to prove that on the balance of probability, your actions were directly contributable to the cause of the accident. Based on what you have said, I think he will have difficulty, particularly if the damage is considtant with you having been hit, and this is where documentary evidence of things like the engineers report, repair estimates and the like can be ever so helpfull, his that is.

You insurers have nothing to lose by running it to court, and based on what you have said, i would have thought that with some decent legal representation, you stand a good chance of getting a result.

Obviously please bear in mind that my comments are based on partial information published on this thread so it cannot carry any weight in law, and my views might change were I to see the whole file, but from what i have read, I doubt it.

Myrkk · #7 Post by **Myrkk** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:40 pm

cheers TC. That's really helpful. It'll help me make up my mind....... I think seeing him again is the main thing putting me off. I understand fully that you don't have full details and so your advice should be treated accordingly.

I haven't been impressed with Zurich Insurance at all. They've been trying to put me off going to court since the beginning of last year and I seem to have had several case workers......... this may be normal, I don't know.

lazarus · #8 Post by **lazarus** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:20 pm

The insurance companies interest is in settling your case for what they see as the best compromise between cost / risk and result. I've got exactly the same argument going on with my insurance funded lawyer woman after my accident and in my case the person who hit me has even been done for careless driving.

But civil cases arent like criminal ones - they can and do come up with shares of responsibility rather than guilty / not guilty. So your case has to be pretty clear cut to result in 100% to you and nothing to him. And if (say) an offer of settlement at 70/30 had already been made it might well be a sensible decision not to chance losing that and incurring extra costs to boot by going all the way into court. or at least thats what a friend who is a judge said to me when I was outraged by my own lawyers lack of aggression. And this is why so many cases are sorted "on the steps of the court".

I also understand where your concern about meeting the guy comes from . My wife had a minor roundabout accident that lead to threats and a road rage incident from the ethnic driving the other vehicle. We even got silent calls in the middle of the night and threats were made against us in the hearing of the police (who did sod all). Nevertheless, she continued and she won because she knew that she would always regret giving way to a bully. Thats what your cop is - a bully, and one who has abused his public position. Not unknown.

I'd say "keep at it" but its your decision. And you would inevitably have to fight both the dibble concerned and your insurance company. And even if you get a 90% award to you, you still dont recover all your NCB and therefore have insurance problems.

BikerGran · #9 Post by **BikerGran** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:14 am

It's probably worth continuing to the poine where a court date is set anyway. That's what I did when I had an accident in 1998, and when the other side could see that I wasn't going to back down, they crumbled and made a good offer which I accepted.

I did have my own representation paid for by my legal cover tho.

T.C. · #10 Post by **T.C.** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:29 pm

lazarus wrote:
But civil cases arent like criminal ones - they can and do come up with shares of responsibility rather than guilty / not guilty. So your case has to be pretty clear cut to result in 100% to you and nothing to him. And if (say) an offer of settlement at 70/30 had already been made it might well be a sensible decision not to chance losing that and incurring extra costs to boot by going all the way into court. or at least thats what a friend who is a judge said to me when I was outraged by my own lawyers lack of aggression. And this is why so many cases are sorted "on the steps of the court".

This is the whole crux. In a magistrates court or in criminal cases, you have to be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of an offence before they can be convicted.

In a civil case, you only have to show "On the balance of probability", and 1% balance of probability is sufficient to move it forward.

If you insurance company or legal representative is any good, it should not take rocket science to move this figure up substantialy, and whilst you may have to accept a small percentage of contributory negligence, maybe 5%, that is still a small price to pay, but the reality is, if your insurers/solicitors are any good, and if they know what they are doing, there should be sufficient evidence to allow them to bring pressure to bear on the third party to make them cave in and collapse, and usually the issue of proceedings is sufficient as it shows that you are serious and belive in your facts.

Myrkk · #11 Post by **Myrkk** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:03 pm

Quick update for anyone who is interested.

Spoke to the Solicitor who has been actioned by my insurance co. And yes I am covered under my insurance so don't have to pay for any representation [ escept if I wish him to recover my uninsured lossed i.e. diary time/lessons lost].

KG [solicitor] has said they've [the insurance co.] have made a pigs ear of it so far, nothing is collated properly or is in the correct format. He's taken another statement from me and has offered the other parties solicitor 50/50 which the other solicitor thinks is reasonable given my witness is an ex- copper and I'm a driving instructor and the other bloke is a traffic cop. The reasoning being we are all well aware of the highway code and how to drive......... However, the other solicitor doesn't think his client will take this and KG gave me the impression that the other solicitor called his client an arrogant individual [i'm paraphrasing here ;) ].

So, having taken into account all the advice on here, thanks very much guys and gals and KGs comments, I've decided to take it all the way. My OH has said he will take the day off and come to court on the day so that I have some moral support.

Interestingly, the passenger in my car is trying to claim £1k damages for 3 days off school........ which KG has laughed at and reduced to £100 and one of the passengers in the other car has claimed £2200 for damages which has been paid out even though the claim hasn't been settled!. I hate this sue the ass off the caterpillar that scared me into a coma society we live in. If we get into NZ this won't happen. The Government has a fund which you claim from and they have fixed amounts that you can get..... so you can't sue the other driver.

Samray · #12 Post by **Samray** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:53 pm

Glad to see you decided on that course.
Short term stress has to be better than long term regrets and hardship.

Gio · #13 Post by **Gio** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:10 pm

Glad you're going for it Myrkk, I really loathe to see others with attitude make people cave in.

If I was local I'd ask which court it was going to be in and pop up to kick him where it hurts after he comes out of court (steel top capped boots)

BikerGran · #14 Post by **BikerGran** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:57 pm

Well done Myrkk!

Bet you don't have to go all the way tho - they'll prolly crumble just before the court date!

Myrkk · #15 Post by **Myrkk** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:57 pm

Cheers everyone.

I'm the same BG...... if it weren't for the fact that I'm stressed out due to a bereavement I would never have considered giving in. Looks like the fiesty me is making a comeback though.

Aww. ta Gio. can I modify them to have spikey bits coming out the toes first