>> I would sue them.
>>
The jobsworths have the funds to fight you, as this man found out:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258739
|
>> The jobsworths have the funds to fight you, as this man found out:
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258739
A completely differnt scenario John. Why on earth should the Council's funds be hit by somebody's misguided going on vexatious legal action?
It was his attempt to challenge the Council's budget in the court that got him, not appealing against parking tickets.
|
>> Why on earth should the Council's funds be hit by
>> somebody's misguided going on vexatious legal action?
>>
Another point of view sees "misguided vexatious" legal action as a fully justifiable David vs Goliath fight against out-of-touch pen-pushing bureaucrats protected by access to limitless taxpayer funds.
|
>> >> I would sue them.
>> >>
>>
>> The jobsworths have the funds to fight you, as this man found out:
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258739
Not the council or the emergecy services silly, the two people with fake neck injuries who got in my car, I would sue the ass off them.
|
A good friend is one of the local County Accident Rescue Service doctors; he told me years ago that the firemen love to turn saloons into open-tops - it makes 'em feel useful!
And, of course, a bit of the old whiplash looks great when they claim agains the bloke who hit them in the first place!
|
It might be a long weary struggle suing the authorities and people's insurance companies for that, even if you won in the end. It is a disgrace of course that this can happen to innocent, helpful third parties. It just shouldn't be possible under those clear circumstances.
There was a story in the comic today about the fire brigade going to considerable, expensive lengths to rescue a grey squirrel spotted swimming in a river. I have witnessed a similar episode that must have cost the taxpayer a good few grand, on that occasion involving a new-born lamb that must have been worth all of 50p that had gone up a rabbit hole and was too dim to come back out of it.
Mischievous lot aren't they, our firefighters? Barmy too. Can't say I mind though.
|
|
This is not a first although it is not clear from any of the reports what the repair position was re write off or repayment tinyurl.com/abfj32n
|
|
I predict a new insurance clause: "Though shalt not cross the road or in other ways offer succour, lest you become a sucker and cost us."
|
|
Just out of interest - on whose authority do the fire service act when cutting up a 3rd parties property? There is no immediate threat to life and limb in these circumstances. Supposing the owner refuses permission?
|
The obligatory crass statement this time reads:
"We can only apologise to Mrs Dunlop for the inconvenience of that."
"only", "apologise", "inconvenience" ! Score 3
|
Surely this is one of those things where the fire brigade had no option. On medical advice they were told that it would not be safe to remove the individuals other than on a spinal board and to move them otherwise would risk injury. They simply did what they had to do. As they said "we can only apologise". What more can they do?
The woman driver accepted the position and indeed I heard her on the radio say she believed it unfortunate but that the fire brigade had no choice in the circumstances.
At the end of the day the person responsible for the damage to the woman's car is whoever caused the accident in the first place. The damage done by the fire brigade arose from an unbroken chain of consequences arising from that event.
|
>> At the end of the day the person responsible for the damage to the woman's
>> car is whoever caused the accident in the first place.
>>
No. The good samaritan brought it on herself, by deciding/volunteering to shelter the injured people in her car.
|
No, legally you are wrong.
No, morally you are wrong.
|
>>
>> No, legally you are wrong.
>>
>> No, morally you are wrong.
>>
>>
See you in court.
|
>> The damage done by the
>> fire brigade arose from an unbroken chain of consequences arising from that event.
>>
Well yes, if true.
But the passengers got into the car unaided, and voluntarily, so presumably could have got out again, voluntarily, or if asked to leave.
Or is the suggestion that they were fine when the gratefully took shelter, but then both became paralysed and unable to get out?
|
According to the driver they were OK but suffering from shock and rather dazed when they got in the car. By the time the medics got to them they were complaining of neck pain. The ambulance staff insisted on the use of a spinal board.
I have no doubt that a judge would consider that legally there was an uninterrupted chain of consequences flowing from the original negligent act that caused the collision and that incident was the proximate cause of the damage caused by the fire brigade. The negligent driver is therefore liable and his insurers will pay.
|
>> According to the driver they were OK but suffering from shock and rather dazed when
>> they got in the car. By the time the medics got to them they were
>> complaining of neck pain. The ambulance staff insisted on the use of a spinal board.
>>
>> I have no doubt that a judge would consider that legally there was an uninterrupted
>> chain of consequences flowing from the original negligent act that caused the collision and that
>> incident was the proximate cause of the damage caused by the fire brigade. The negligent
>> driver is therefore liable and his insurers will pay.
How about the judge concluding they were perfectly alright enough to walk into the car, and that the neck injury is bogus and they be forced to pay for damages themselves?
|
|
If the injury was bogus that could of course be the case. However nobody including the owner has made that allegation. Not everyone is a fraudster.
|
two people suddenly get the same symptoms at the same time (that they didnt previously have) after sitting together in someone elses car?
Yeah - right.
Rule no 1 now seems to be.
If you assist at the scene of an accident, lock your car doors.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 11 Jan 13 at 09:29
|
|
Neither you nor I know whether the injuries are genuine or not so speculation on the matter is pointless. My original post simply explained who would be legally liable assuming the case was genuine.
|
|
And I am merely pointing out that some poor innocent soul has been put to a load of hassle for no good reason. And its not speculation, its a conclusion based on unlikely real life circumstances.
|
>> And I am merely pointing out that some poor innocent soul has been put to
>> a load of hassle for no good reason. And its not speculation, its a conclusion
>> based on unlikely real life circumstances.
I admit I 'posted' the same thoughts when this thread began but it got lost in the ether and I couldn't be bothered to re-type it at the time.
The medical profession can't even agree that chronic whiplash exists. Ker-ching.
What an unworthy thought.
Epidemiology of whiplash -
ard.bmj.com/content/58/1/1.full
|
|
Quite telling from the BMJ article that the incidence of whiplash chronic injury is nil on dodgem rides. The velocities are similar they say.
|
When we had our rear collision with an HGV the hospital gave us foam collars to wear. We did not have sore necks (you'd have thought the force from the impact of an HGV might have been enough for whiplash if the scale of this injury is to be believed!). Soon stopped using the collars.... they gave us sore necks.
With our injuries could we have pursued it further (we did need treatment)? Probably but made more complicated because of the accident being in Italy and it took nearly a year for the driver of the HGV to be found guilty. We were just thankful to have survived.
|
>> The medical profession can't even agree that chronic whiplash exists. Ker-ching.
Well, I can confirm it does, I still suffer neck pain, and expect to for the rest of my life, after getting rear ended around 5 years ago.
At times I can hardly move for the pain.
|
>>If you assist at the scene of an accident, lock your car doors.
I've had to tell people to do that, mainly to prevent stuff being nicked.
|
>>
>> There was a story in the comic today about the fire brigade going to considerable,
>> expensive lengths to rescue a grey squirrel spotted swimming in a river.
>>
I spotted that. An air rifle would have done the trick.
|
|
I wonder if they released it afterwards - illegal as grey squirrels are immigrants.
|
>> There was a story in the comic today about the fire brigade going to considerable,
>> expensive lengths to rescue a grey squirrel spotted swimming in a river.
>>
comic pictures: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258432/
|
The squirrel was not in a river but a water feature in the centre of Watford into which it had dropped from an overhanging tree. It might have been able to climb the parapet but no certainty.
Since the firemen would otherwise have been sitting on their bums in the fire station the only cost was the diesel from there to town centre.
|
>> Since the firemen would otherwise have been sitting on their bums in the fire station
>> the only cost was the diesel from there to town centre.
>>
I will pay for the diesel if you send them round to me. I have some odd jobs for them to do (gardening, cleaning roof gutters, washing my car).
|
If they had said it was a training exercise I presume no-one would have complained?
Hope none of you fall in the river!
Pat
|
I would have paid for the airgun pellets :)
and that was was for the 2 people in the good samaritans car.
|
>>
>> comic pictures: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258432/
>>
They appear to kitted up ready for every eventuality -hi-viz jackets, helmets, life jackets, walki-talkies, axes, and even a shepherd's crook.
Don't they carry proper squirrel-catching crooks of an appropriate size?
|
>> Don't they carry proper squirrel-catching crooks of an appropriate size?
>>
Nah, those things are for dragging the job out, not the squirrel.
Wonder if a rat would've got the same response?
|
tinyurl.com/aq7xgl3
It seems that Vauxhall have come to the rescue and provided a replacement car.
|
>> tinyurl.com/aq7xgl3
>>
>> It seems that Vauxhall have come to the rescue and provided a replacement car.
>>
>>
>>
Life is so unfair sometimes, after all the trauma this poor woman has been through she has now been given another Vectra ! :-)
|
|
Yeah, talk about kick someone when they are down.
|
>>
>> Life is so unfair sometimes, after all the trauma this poor woman has been through
>> she has now been given another Vectra ! :-)
>>
You mean to say that Vauxhall can give Vectras away?
I'm sure I've heard it said that they couldn't.
|
What do you put on the insurance claim form? - Zero
