Personal Injury - Settlement Advice

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more.

The Audience:

"Open the box!"
"Take the money!"
"Higher!"
"Lower!"
"It's answer C!"
"Let's have a look at what you could have won!"

Bruce Forsyth was *made* for this thread...

CXXC

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more.

The Audience:

"Open the box!"
"Take the money!"
"Higher!"
"Lower!"
"It's answer C!"
"Let's have a look at what you could have won!"

Bruce Forsyth was *made* for this thread...

nice to see you, to see you.....

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

Hehehe. This tactic is quite good for wrong-footing people in all sorts of scenarios.

el_presidente

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more. Thanks for the advice peeps.

Il Principe wrote:

....the driver's insurers have finally offered a settlement, it's a figure that is higher than I was expecting. Significantly higher if I'm honest.

My solicitor is saying that the offer is not unreasonable...

So, what the hell should I do? Be greedy and try for more or settle for the offer which is better than I'd hoped for anyway? ....

Advice/thoughts appreciated!

My thoughts are you are being greedy

jonny_trousers

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

Hehehe. This tactic is quite good for wrong-footing people in all sorts of scenarios.

Do you really think that an insurance company worker will feel sheepish if he manages to settle a claim for less than expected??? Personally I'd go for the extra two grand.

jonny_trousers

Ps. I've been in similar positions twice in my life. Both times I rejected the initial offer and both times I was then offered considerably more.

Gazzaputt

Reject the first offer.

They'll come back with a nice increase but please don't waste it on a Dogma.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

Hehehe. This tactic is quite good for wrong-footing people in all sorts of scenarios.

Do you really think that an insurance company worker will feel sheepish if he manages to settle a claim for less than expected??? Personally I'd go for the extra two grand.

<sigh>

Yes.

Their line manager will spot the settlement that doesn't have the "beat the other side down to their lowest figure" hallmarks and want to know WTF the worker went in with the (now perceived to be unduly generous) figure that he did.

spen666

el_presidente wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more. Thanks for the advice peeps.

Il Principe wrote:

....the driver's insurers have finally offered a settlement, it's a figure that is higher than I was expecting. Significantly higher if I'm honest.

My solicitor is saying that the offer is not unreasonable...

So, what the hell should I do? Be greedy and try for more or settle for the offer which is better than I'd hoped for anyway? ....

Advice/thoughts appreciated!

My thoughts are you are being greedy

You are jumping to a conclusion without a basis for reaching it

IL Principe is not an expert in valuing PI claims and therfore his expectation is not a valid yardstick.

If I suffer a cut to say my little finger and expect to get £1million damages- would I be being reasonable in rejecting offers of £10,000 because it did not meet my expectation?

Clearly not. The uninformed expectation is no way to value a claim or to judge if someone is being greedy in holding out for a fair value.

The expert in valuing the claim - his lawyer- is advising to hold out for more as the offer is below the value such a claim should settle for

el_presidente

Spen - the OP asked for thoughts, and I have provided mine.

jonny_trousers

Greg66 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

One tactic I quite like in the "game" is to accept the first offer immediately. It always leaves the offerer feeling pretty sheepish, and more than a bit uneasy that they went in way too high. YMMV.

Hehehe. This tactic is quite good for wrong-footing people in all sorts of scenarios.

Do you really think that an insurance company worker will feel sheepish if he manages to settle a claim for less than expected??? Personally I'd go for the extra two grand.

<sigh>

Yes.

Their line manager will spot the settlement that doesn't have the "beat the other side down to their lowest figure" hallmarks and want to know WTF the worker went in with the (now perceived to be unduly generous) figure that he did.

Well even if the little scenario you suggest occurs - and let's face it, it's equally as likely that the worker will be given a huge pat on the back for settling a case on the first offer - I would be far happier with an extra grand in my pocket than the thought that some faceless insurance assessor may have received a bollocking from his boss for putting in too high an opening offer.

I have absolutely no inside knowledge on this, but I suspect it is normal practice to make a lower settlement offer than the one you are ultimately willing to go to first.

W1

spen666 wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna twist and hold out for a bit more. Thanks for the advice peeps.

Il Principe wrote:

....the driver's insurers have finally offered a settlement, it's a figure that is higher than I was expecting. Significantly higher if I'm honest.

My solicitor is saying that the offer is not unreasonable...

So, what the hell should I do? Be greedy and try for more or settle for the offer which is better than I'd hoped for anyway? ....

Advice/thoughts appreciated!

My thoughts are you are being greedy

You are jumping to a conclusion without a basis for reaching it

IL Principe is not an expert in valuing PI claims and therfore his expectation is not a valid yardstick.

If I suffer a cut to say my little finger and expect to get £1million damages- would I be being reasonable in rejecting offers of £10,000 because it did not meet my expectation?

Clearly not. The uninformed expectation is no way to value a claim or to judge if someone is being greedy in holding out for a fair value.

The expert in valuing the claim - his lawyer- is advising to hold out for more as the offer is below the value such a claim should settle for

What does it matter as to what it's "worth" if the injured party is satisfied and feels he has been adequately compensated (i.e. even the first offer was higher than expected?) To request substantially more doesn't mean you'll receive it. To expect substantially less, be in fact offered more, and accept that offer doesn't seem to me (on the face of it) a bad outcome?

spen666

W1 wrote:

.... for more as the offer is below the value such a claim should settle for

What does it matter as to what it's "worth" if the injured party is satisfied and feels he has been adequately compensated (i.e. even the first offer was higher than expected?) To request substantially more doesn't mean you'll receive it. To expect substantially less, be in fact offered more, and accept that offer doesn't seem to me (on the face of it) a bad outcome?[/quote]


so if a little old granny takes into an antique shop a painting and expects it to be worth £25 and if offered £30 by the shop owner who realises it is a rare Rembrandt painting worth £30million.
you'd think this is fare and the little old lady has got a good result.

The only reason the OP in this thread got an offer more than he expected was because of his "ignorance" in valuing such claims. To have his "ignorance" cited as a reason for accepting an offer below the value of the claim is wrong.

Your logic is that of the insurers who try to persuade governments to keep lawyers out of PI claims, because then they would get away with offering settlements below the market value as the victims would have no way of knowing how much a claim is really worth.

W1

spen666 wrote:

The only reason the OP in this thread got an offer more than he expected was because of his "ignorance" in valuing such claims. To have his "ignorance" cited as a reason for accepting an offer below the value of the claim is wrong.

Your logic is that of the insurers who try to persuade governments to keep lawyers out of PI claims, because then they would get away with offering settlements below the market value as the victims would have no way of knowing how much a claim is really worth.

This isn't the only situation where the lawyers actually cause more problems than they help! It's often lawyers encouraging principles to continue in what would otherwise be an easily and amicable resolution (and with the lawyer clock ticking). There's an awkward conflict there, in my opinion.

Your "little old lady" example is rather exaggerated and not really comparable, as the monetary value of that item is well known and there is a market for it. You know as well as I do that outside of actually monetary losses, it's a mock science to "value" an injury because money doesn't reduce pain or inconvenience. It only compensates for it, but that level of compensation is impossible to "value". The best "value" is if the aggrieved feels that they have been adequately compensated - an offer higher than expected achieves this, even if it's less than the other party was prepared to pay. If the parties can't agree then the court will, to avoid stubborn parties paying too much or too little. hat doesn't make holding out for more anything other than greed though, if the original offer was in fact satisfactory to cmpensate thei injured to their satisfaction.

il_principe

Gazzaputt wrote:

Reject the first offer.

They'll come back with a nice increase but please don't waste it on a Dogma.

If I did it wouldn't be a Dogma though, but it would be dripping with campag eletronic. Sadly impending nuptials and last year's purchase of a flat will end up swallowing most of the cash.

So ends the dream.

F*cking weddings.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The only reason the OP in this thread got an offer more than he expected was because of his "ignorance" in valuing such claims. To have his "ignorance" cited as a reason for accepting an offer below the value of the claim is wrong.

Your logic is that of the insurers who try to persuade governments to keep lawyers out of PI claims, because then they would get away with offering settlements below the market value as the victims would have no way of knowing how much a claim is really worth.

This isn't the only situation where the lawyers actually cause more problems than they help! It's often lawyers encouraging principles to continue in what would otherwise be an easily and amicable resolution (and with the lawyer clock ticking). There's an awkward conflict there, in my opinion.

Your "little old lady" example is rather exaggerated and not really comparable, as the monetary value of that item is well known and there is a market for it. You know as well as I do that outside of actually monetary losses, it's a mock science to "value" an injury because money doesn't reduce pain or inconvenience. It only compensates for it, but that level of compensation is impossible to "value". The best "value" is if the aggrieved feels that they have been adequately compensated - an offer higher than expected achieves this, even if it's less than the other party was prepared to pay. If the parties can't agree then the court will, to avoid stubborn parties paying too much or too little. hat doesn't make holding out for more anything other than greed though, if the original offer was in fact satisfactory to cmpensate thei injured to their satisfaction.

I don't understand this post on a number of levels. Do you mean "principals"? There clearly is a method to measure the level of damages to associate with a given injury. Whilst it is not an exact science, there will usually be a clearly definable range of outcomes. There are also numerous cases that can be looked at to decide what an injury is worth. In relation to other losses that may form part of a claim - damage to property, travel expenses, loss of income, these are all clearly measurable. In this case (as in many) I get the impression that the aggrieved simply doesn't know whether the offer amounts to adequate compensation or not. His lawyer (who is the expert and who knows the full facts of the case) thinks not, and I really don't see that any of us are in a position to disagree. There's an awful lot of uninformed nonsense in this thread... :roll:

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'm not sure fairness is the touchstone here, though.

Just as a house is only worth what someone will pay for it, an injury is worth what the injured person will accept for it. If the offer to the injured person doesn't match his expectations, a court will determine the value of the injury. But the court halts the injured person's over ambitious claims; it doesn't try to persuade the injured person who wishes to accept a "lowball" offer to keep on going. That's the lawyer's job.

None of us know the likely value of the injury in court, or how the offer or any proposed counter offer fare against that. Nor do we know how extensively the OP has been advised as to the likely court-determined value of his injury (reading between the lines, his surprise at the offer level against his guestimate suggests that he hasn't).

Without that information, debating the morality of the insurer as against the greed of the OP in this particular case seems rather hypothetical to me.

The simple question on the table was "do I horsetrade?"; the lawyer advised yes, and that advice was followed. But the OP could (to my mind at least) just as easily and justifiably not followed the advice; I don't really subscribe to the view that there's an obligation to push claims like this hard to keep insurers honest.

W1

BigMat wrote:

I don't understand this post on a number of levels. Do you mean "principals"? There clearly is a method to measure the level of damages to associate with a given injury. Whilst it is not an exact science, there will usually be a clearly definable range of outcomes. There are also numerous cases that can be looked at to decide what an injury is worth. In relation to other losses that may form part of a claim - damage to property, travel expenses, loss of income, these are all clearly measurable. In this case (as in many) I get the impression that the aggrieved simply doesn't know whether the offer amounts to adequate compensation or not. His lawyer (who is the expert and who knows the full facts of the case) thinks not, and I really don't see that any of us are in a position to disagree. There's an awful lot of uninformed nonsense in this thread... :roll:

I'll try to be clearer. Yes, I do mean "principals". The easily identified monetary losses are, obviously, easy to attend to. As to valuing an injury, how do you think the original cases on which you rely generated a number? Pretty much sticking a finger in the air. How else do you value (say) a broken bone? As an example of the strange way that injuries are valued (relatively) have a look a libel payouts compared to injury valuations. It's all a mock sciience, because, as I said, it's impossible for money to alleviate pain and inconvenience. The aggreived has already said that the offer is higher than he expected - thereby he's given his opinion that the compensation is already adequate for him to be satisfied to the extent that money can satisfy for injury (whcih as I say is hard to quantify). Obviously we don't have the facts other than what the OP has said, but bear in mind the conflict I highlighted earlier...

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

His lawyer (who is the expert and who knows the full facts of the case) thinks not,

This bit slightly puzzles me. IP plainly had a view as to what the injury was worth. An offer comes in which is a lot higher, and then the lawyer says he can go higher still.

I infer from that that the lawyer hadn't (pre offer) advised IP as to the value of his claim (or perhaps changed his mind dramatically, but the tenor of IP's post doesn't really support that).

I would have thought that the value of the claim (even on a ballpark basis) ought to have been discussed early doors.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Reject the first offer.

They'll come back with a nice increase but please don't waste it on a Dogma.

If I did it wouldn't be a Dogma though, but it would be dripping with campag eletronic. Sadly impending nuptials and last year's purchase of a flat will end up swallowing most of the cash.

So ends the dream.

F*cking weddings.

Mate, the wedding is simply the downpayment on a lifetime of bleeding cash through all your major arteries.

You knew that, right?

spen666

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The only reason the OP in this thread got an offer more than he expected was because of his "ignorance" in valuing such claims. To have his "ignorance" cited as a reason for accepting an offer below the value of the claim is wrong.

Your logic is that of the insurers who try to persuade governments to keep lawyers out of PI claims, because then they would get away with offering settlements below the market value as the victims would have no way of knowing how much a claim is really worth.

This isn't the only situation where the lawyers actually cause more problems than they help! It's often lawyers encouraging principles to continue in what would otherwise be an easily and amicable resolution (and with the lawyer clock ticking). There's an awkward conflict there, in my opinion.

Your "little old lady" example is rather exaggerated and not really comparable, as the monetary value of that item is well known and there is a market for it. You know as well as I do that outside of actually monetary losses, it's a mock science to "value" an injury because money doesn't reduce pain or inconvenience. It only compensates for it, but that level of compensation is impossible to "value". The best "value" is if the aggrieved feels that they have been adequately compensated - an offer higher than expected achieves this, even if it's less than the other party was prepared to pay. If the parties can't agree then the court will, to avoid stubborn parties paying too much or too little. hat doesn't make holding out for more anything other than greed though, if the original offer was in fact satisfactory to cmpensate thei injured to their satisfaction.

you are rather deluding yourself if you think the monetary value of antiques/ paintings etc is well known.

Firstly, the item would need to be identified by the owner as a Rembrandt, then the owner would have to know how much a Rembrandt painting was worth.

I personally would not know if a painting I had was by Rembrandt or the local artist.

I would not know how much a Rembrandt was worth £1million or £50 million.

I would need help to value it

In my example the little old lady feels she got best value as she got more than she thought. So that is a fair resolution of the case isn't it? The fact she has accepted £30million less than its true value is just overlooked as she was initially happy with what she got because she was ignorant as to its true worth.


In the same way, do you know how much a court awards for say a double fracture of the femr with related spinal damage and a 30% acceleration in the arthritis in the knee?

No, neither would I, but a PI specialist lawyer would.

Why try to value an injury when you have no idea of what its worth. I suppose you would also suggest the OP does not get a medical report to diagnose his injuries but uses his own knowledge.

There are specialist medical practitioners, specialist lawyers etc- precisely because these things are not easily or properly valued by the lay person.

I suggest you read back other the postings by the OP, especially the one where he lists his injuries. Then please tell the forum:
a) How much compensation he is entitled to
b) What you based this valuation on - which cases did you refer to?

W1

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The only reason the OP in this thread got an offer more than he expected was because of his "ignorance" in valuing such claims. To have his "ignorance" cited as a reason for accepting an offer below the value of the claim is wrong.

Your logic is that of the insurers who try to persuade governments to keep lawyers out of PI claims, because then they would get away with offering settlements below the market value as the victims would have no way of knowing how much a claim is really worth.

This isn't the only situation where the lawyers actually cause more problems than they help! It's often lawyers encouraging principles to continue in what would otherwise be an easily and amicable resolution (and with the lawyer clock ticking). There's an awkward conflict there, in my opinion.

Your "little old lady" example is rather exaggerated and not really comparable, as the monetary value of that item is well known and there is a market for it. You know as well as I do that outside of actually monetary losses, it's a mock science to "value" an injury because money doesn't reduce pain or inconvenience. It only compensates for it, but that level of compensation is impossible to "value". The best "value" is if the aggrieved feels that they have been adequately compensated - an offer higher than expected achieves this, even if it's less than the other party was prepared to pay. If the parties can't agree then the court will, to avoid stubborn parties paying too much or too little. hat doesn't make holding out for more anything other than greed though, if the original offer was in fact satisfactory to cmpensate thei injured to their satisfaction.

you are rather deluding yourself if you think the monetary value of antiques/ paintings etc is well known.

Firstly, the item would need to be identified by the owner as a Rembrandt, then the owner would have to know how much a Rembrandt painting was worth.

I personally would not know if a painting I had was by Rembrandt or the local artist.

I would not know how much a Rembrandt was worth £1million or £50 million.

I would need help to value it

In my example the little old lady feels she got best value as she got more than she thought. So that is a fair resolution of the case isn't it? The fact she has accepted £30million less than its true value is just overlooked as she was initially happy with what she got because she was ignorant as to its true worth.


In the same way, do you know how much a court awards for say a double fracture of the femr with related spinal damage and a 30% acceleration in the arthritis in the knee?

No, neither would I, but a PI specialist lawyer would.

Why try to value an injury when you have no idea of what its worth. I suppose you would also suggest the OP does not get a medical report to diagnose his injuries but uses his own knowledge.

There are specialist medical practitioners, specialist lawyers etc- precisely because these things are not easily or properly valued by the lay person.

I suggest you read back other the postings by the OP, especially the one where he lists his injuries. Then please tell the forum:
a) How much compensation he is entitled to
b) What you based this valuation on - which cases did you refer to?

You've missed the point entirely.On what basis are injuries valued, when you consider that money cannot remove the injury (i.e. it is only a compensation rather than a cure)? And who is to say that provided the injured party considers himself to be adequately compensated there are any arguments for attempting to get more?

And you can't auction a broken arm....

But nevermid, I doubt this will be the last time we disagree.

DonDaddyD

ill Prince.

1). I don't think anyone has a right to tell you that you're being greedy or not. It's your injury, you inconvenience, you lived through that moment of fear. So ultiamtely the cost/value of the injury and compensation is yours to decide (shaped by the advice given). Seriously, fvck em.

2). Compensation isn't a great evil, its an accepted mechanism of this society that, yes, has been abused/manipulated but that is down to the morals of that person. Compensation itself isn't a bad thing nor can we paint all the people who are justifiably seeking compensation as greefy.

If I decided to seek compensation and got an offer that met my expectations and my expectations weren't far lower than the advice I was given, I would accept. But that doesn't mean you have to - in your heart you may feel like you deserve more.

(It's the same with expenses, I don't claim. Not event the £40 for petrol I'm entitled to. However if my staff member wants to claim back her £2 bus ticket fair play she is entitled to do so).

bigmat

W1 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I don't understand this post on a number of levels. Do you mean "principals"? There clearly is a method to measure the level of damages to associate with a given injury. Whilst it is not an exact science, there will usually be a clearly definable range of outcomes. There are also numerous cases that can be looked at to decide what an injury is worth. In relation to other losses that may form part of a claim - damage to property, travel expenses, loss of income, these are all clearly measurable. In this case (as in many) I get the impression that the aggrieved simply doesn't know whether the offer amounts to adequate compensation or not. His lawyer (who is the expert and who knows the full facts of the case) thinks not, and I really don't see that any of us are in a position to disagree. There's an awful lot of uninformed nonsense in this thread... :roll:

I'll try to be clearer. Yes, I do mean "principals". The easily identified monetary losses are, obviously, easy to attend to. As to valuing an injury, how do you think the original cases on which you rely generated a number? Pretty much sticking a finger in the air. How else do you value (say) a broken bone? As an example of the strange way that injuries are valued (relatively) have a look a libel payouts compared to injury valuations. It's all a mock sciience, because, as I said, it's impossible for money to alleviate pain and inconvenience. The aggreived has already said that the offer is higher than he expected - thereby he's given his opinion that the compensation is already adequate for him to be satisfied to the extent that money can satisfy for injury (whcih as I say is hard to quantify). Obviously we don't have the facts other than what the OP has said, but bear in mind the conflict I highlighted earlier...

Its not "finger in the air" though. Check out the JSB guidelines. There is clear guidance on how much an injury is worth. How much a claim is worth can be supported by referring to decided cases. Its an inexact science, but its an expert's job to arrive at an appropriate figure and to advise his client whether an offer is acceptable or not. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the whole "conflict" angle - a lawyer's primary duty is to achieve the best outcome for the client and its a pretty stringently regulated profession. Also bear in mind that if they recommend settlement because a client "seems happy" with a low offer, they'll be looking down the barrel of a negligence claim if the client later realises he could have done better.

Re the OP, if he wants to accept the offer then great, but I got the impression that this thread was to do with what the most sensible course of action would be, the risk of pressing for an improved offer etc. He has (IMO) done the common sense thing in letting his solicitor assess the risks and following his advice. Hopefully we'll get an update on the outcome ("I got an extra X%" will do!)

spen666

W1 wrote:

....

You've missed the point entirely.On what basis are injuries valued, when you consider that money cannot remove the injury (i.e. it is only a compensation rather than a cure)? And who is to say that provided the injured party considers himself to be adequately compensated there are any arguments for attempting to get more?

And you can't auction a broken arm....

But nevermid, I doubt this will be the last time we disagree.

so you can't / don't know how to value these injuries.

The OP doesn't know how to value these injuries. So he takes the sensible course of action and goes to see an expert in valuing such claims.

the expert will amongst other things, be able to interpret the medical evidence and the prognosis. He will be able to value the claim using a combination of experience and reference to relevant decisions of the courts in similar cases. He will also, probably refer to Kemp & Kemp on damages.

The courts award compensation for injuries. As you ssay, it is not possible to auction a broken arm, thus making it even more difficult to a lay person to know what a claim is worth.

If the OP thought compensation was worth £100 and accepted that much, then found out later his claim was actually worth £100,000 what would you be saying to him? "Tough luck, you should have sought help in valuing your claim?"

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

You've missed the point entirely.On what basis are injuries valued, when you consider that money cannot remove the injury (i.e. it is only a compensation rather than a cure)? And who is to say that provided the injured party considers himself to be adequately compensated there are any arguments for attempting to get more?

And you can't auction a broken arm....

But nevermid, I doubt this will be the last time we disagree.

Isn't part of the compensation comprised of, but not limited to:

Lost earnings
Travel costs to hospital to work (that they would normally not have to take prior to injury)
Cost of surgery (lets say if the victim had to go private)
Any clothing/property damage

Then takes this into consideration

Emotional/Physical stress
Pain
The injurgy itself

In all honesty I think I would find it easier to put a price on the latter half of the above (emotional stress et al) than adequately calaculate lost earnings, travel etc into a reasonable compensation package.

I would likely seek professional advice.

In fact I think I told Prince to do so in the pub, not sure he listened but he did.

I'm glad.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

You've missed the point entirely.On what basis are injuries valued, when you consider that money cannot remove the injury (i.e. it is only a compensation rather than a cure)? And who is to say that provided the injured party considers himself to be adequately compensated there are any arguments for attempting to get more?

And you can't auction a broken arm....

But nevermid, I doubt this will be the last time we disagree.

Isn't part of the compensation comprised of:

Lost earnings
Travel costs to hospital to work (that they would normally not have to take prior to injury)
Cost of surgery (lets say if the victim had to go private)
Any clothing/property damage

Then takes this into consideration

Emotional/Physical stress
Pain
The injurgy itself


In all honesty I think I would put a price on the latter half of the above (emotional stress et al) than adequately calaculate lost earnings, travel etc into a reasonable compensation package. I would likely seek professional advice. In fact I think I told Prince to do so in the pub, not sure he listened but he did. I'm glad.

I gather from car accidents my brother and I have (separately) been involved in that there is also consideration given to the severity of the impact your injuries have on your normal activities, and how long the problem lasts.

Emotional stress is one of those hard ones to quantify, hey?

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

ill Prince.

1). I don't think anyone has a right to tell you that you're being greedy or not. It's your injury, you inconvenience, you lived through that moment of fear. So ultiamtely the cost/value of the injury and compensation is yours to decide (shaped by the advice given). Seriously, fvck em.

2). Compensation isn't a great evil, its an accepted mechanism of this society that, yes, has been abused/manipulated but that is down to the morals of that person. Compensation itself isn't a bad thing nor can we paint all the people who are justifiably seeking compensation as greefy.

If I decided to seek compensation and got an offer that met my expectations and my expectations weren't far lower than the advice I was given, I would accept. But that doesn't mean you have to - in your heart you may feel like you deserve more.

(It's the same with expenses, I don't claim. Not event the £40 for petrol I'm entitled to. However if my staff member wants to claim back her £2 bus ticket fair play she is entitled to do so).

+ 1 nuff said.

W1

spen666 wrote:

so you can't / don't know how to value these injuries.

The OP doesn't know how to value these injuries. So he takes the sensible course of action and goes to see an expert in valuing such claims.

the expert will amongst other things, be able to interpret the medical evidence and the prognosis. He will be able to value the claim using a combination of experience and reference to relevant decisions of the courts in similar cases. He will also, probably refer to Kemp & Kemp on damages.

The courts award compensation for injuries. As you ssay, it is not possible to auction a broken arm, thus making it even more difficult to a lay person to know what a claim is worth.

If the OP thought compensation was worth £100 and accepted that much, then found out later his claim was actually worth £100,000 what would you be saying to him? "Tough luck, you should have sought help in valuing your claim?"

If he felt adequately compensated, who are we (or you) to say what his claim was "worth"?

What is the intrinsic value of a broken arm? Impossible to say. We've tried to put a figure on that through court decisions and analysis, but that's still based on the fact that it is actually impossible to "value" pain and injury. We can only compensate for it. And if the injured party feels that the compensation is sufficient, then "justice" as such is served.

If the OP never sought advice, and went through the rest of his life content with the settlement offer, that would be bad because he could have got more, even though he was happy with what he got? Is that what you're saying?

MonkeyMonster

spen666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

....But nevermid, I doubt this will be the last time we disagree.

heh heh, you two keep this place warm with the loving words you each mix into the big pot of commuting chat If you ever meet irl, make sure there is a hotel nearby in case you want to take it further...