Helmets - Contributory negligence case law?
andyh01
Posts: 571
Just before I duck for cover, what is the latest position with not wearing helmets and being involved in a collision suffering injury?
I was recently involved in my first ever T bone incident last Tuesday I suffered some injury I called a law firm having spoken to the 3rd party insurer direct who didn't really want talk to me and was more concerned with their customer damage and their injuries and whether any passengers (in the car)
When I called this high street lawyer one of the first questions they asked me was whether I was wearing a lid, when we met up I asked why they wanted to know this? They said because if I wasn't, I could have any damages awarded reduced by up to 25% for contributory negligence, when I asked if there has been any successful cases, where the damages has been reduced for this, I was informed there are several, but they couldn't think of any at the time. I am not aware that any president has been set in law, other than judges making side comments (which have been subjected to criticism due to lack of evidence) that are not binding or influence the damages awarded, other than Smith? V? A motorist had their prison sentence reduced for death by dangerous driving as the deceased was not wearing a lid(again no evidence to suggested if they had the outcome would have been any different) and this is been appealed, however, as the judge also remarked, no amount of money/prison sentence will replace the tragic loss of life.
Do I need a more specialist lawyer for a fairly simple clear cut case? For the record out of personal choice I was wearing a lid at the time. I don't want start a pro/con emotive debate about helmets per-se and I'm not claiming my injuries are any different to whether I was wearing a lid.
Thanks
ANdy
I was recently involved in my first ever T bone incident last Tuesday I suffered some injury I called a law firm having spoken to the 3rd party insurer direct who didn't really want talk to me and was more concerned with their customer damage and their injuries and whether any passengers (in the car)
When I called this high street lawyer one of the first questions they asked me was whether I was wearing a lid, when we met up I asked why they wanted to know this? They said because if I wasn't, I could have any damages awarded reduced by up to 25% for contributory negligence, when I asked if there has been any successful cases, where the damages has been reduced for this, I was informed there are several, but they couldn't think of any at the time. I am not aware that any president has been set in law, other than judges making side comments (which have been subjected to criticism due to lack of evidence) that are not binding or influence the damages awarded, other than Smith? V? A motorist had their prison sentence reduced for death by dangerous driving as the deceased was not wearing a lid(again no evidence to suggested if they had the outcome would have been any different) and this is been appealed, however, as the judge also remarked, no amount of money/prison sentence will replace the tragic loss of life.
Do I need a more specialist lawyer for a fairly simple clear cut case? For the record out of personal choice I was wearing a lid at the time. I don't want start a pro/con emotive debate about helmets per-se and I'm not claiming my injuries are any different to whether I was wearing a lid.
Thanks
ANdy
0
Posts
When I was knocked down by an uninsured driver last year as a pedestrian I wasn't asked if I was wearing a helmet.
I think the lawyers were quoting hearsay and hogwash to the OP.
Insurance companies don't like to pay out.
Having a salaried legal team is a fixed cost and therefor it doesn't matter to insurers if their response is slow while tactically delaying progree and therefor payment at every opportunity.
So add in ambulance chasing solicitors and the adversarial approach our courts take makes for a melting pot of low life scum.
Desmond Tutu