Compensation Claims and Evidence Perceptions and Reality.
-
Upload
eugenia-woods -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Compensation Claims and Evidence Perceptions and Reality.
Compensation Claims and EvidencePerceptions and Reality
Perceptions v Reality
• Perceptions– Claiming compensation is easy
• Reality– Evidence based
Claims Management companies
Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy?
• Complex claims –no witnesses & claimant no recall
• Fatal collisions without witnesses
• Contributory negligence assessing respective blame 50:50 80:20
• Collision involving young children- no fault for very young children
• So how easy or difficult is it to prove a case?
Case Examples Mr T and his Seat Belt
• Mr T elderly retired hit head on in RTA collision
• Serious crush injuries to his legs
• Defence admit liability argue contributory negligence failure to wear seat belt.
• Problem A & E notes state “unrestrained “ in vehicle
Case Study Mr T & his seat belt
• Contradictory evidence• Interview treating consultant who recalled the
case and took photos very bad seat belt bruising• Difference to the claim on these facts 15%
deduction of damages• Seat belt issues constantly raised on cases
Mr B a mystery incident
• Pedal cyclist in collision with car on wide two carriageway road
• Inexplicable how it happened • client catastrophic head
injury no recollection• Only witnesses defendant
driver and his passenger.
Mr B
• Controversial evidence driver’s passenger• Witness statement sent to defence expecting an
offer/settlement proposal • Response: estranged girlfriend all lies• trial 3 days• Judge preferred our evidence and 2/3rd liability in
claimants favour.
Miss J – PTSD claim
• Horrific collision bus and small car driver killed at scene
• Sister goes looking for him comes across the scene and sees mangled car suffers PTSD
• Claim rejected by insurers• We track down the police officers - vivid and
powerful statements at this point insurers accept she was at scene
Miss J PTSD Claim
• But deny PTSD • Our medical evidence proves PTSD • Miss J wants case over takes low offer to bring to
an end• Defence next argument costs• Each step was contentious high evidential burden
Final case study J - boys on bikes
• 3 boys out for cycle ride park up at a disused factory for lemonade
• Accosted by security guard who aggressively pursues the boys down hill
• Boys frightened – tight turn boy J fails the turn has defective brakes hits lamp post and is killed
J boys on bikes
• Security guard prosecuted 3 times causing death by dangerous driving – 2 no verdict finally pleads to lesser charge
• Civil claim liability denied.• We take statements from:
– witnesses who saw guard confront boys aggressively– other car users who saw the chase, – friends and family who knew the boy’s character – the two boys who had been with the deceased
Young J boys on bikes
• All the statements were distressing to take • Long 3.5 year fight for compensation• Family finding it hard, other problems to contend
with • “Time bomb” offer to finish
• Not about money but justice
Evidence Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy
• The claimant bears the burden of proof• Evidence can be intrusive • Finding and dealing with the evidence can be
distressing • Circumstances may not be enough • Struggle and stress on families.• The reality is very different to the popular
perception