The stories tax drivers tell

keithclancy

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/learner-driver-loses-damages-claim-against-dublin-bus-493613.html

Taxi-driver Mark Quinn, who said he had since qualified as a solicitor, told the court he was driving behind the bus and could see Ms Balogun’s car in front of it.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Yes your honour... i'm a solicitor now don't you know

coylemj

That is a significant ruling by the judge. Previously I believe it didn't matter why the first car hit the brakes, once the second car rear ended the first it was an insurance claim.

That's probably why staged accidents involve two cars, they both get in front of an unsuspecting motorist, then the first car hits the brakes, the second guy does as well but he's expecting it so he stops in time, the third (innocent) motorist who's being set up isn't part of the conspiracy so he slams into the second car which just happens to be filled with four adults with weak necks who for the rest of their blameless lives suffer from whiplash injuries.

In that case the first guy drives off and can't be traced so the second motorist appears to have a valid claim against the third guy and the insurance company coughs up.

A couple of lads pulled this stunt in the UK on several motorists at the same roundabout. Only problem was that there was an office block beside the roundabout and when the workers on the upper floors started recognising the driver of the rear-ended car as a serial victim they reported it to the police and he got a jail term for conspiracy to defraud.

La Haine

coylemj wrote: »

That is a significant ruling by the judge. Previously I believe it didn't matter why the first car hit the brakes, once the second car rear ended the first it was an insurance claim.

That's probably why staged accidents involve two cars, they both get in front of an unsuspecting motorist, then the first car hits the brakes, the second guy does as well but he's expecting it so he stops in time, the third (innocent) motorist who's being set up isn't part of the conspiracy so he slams into the second car which just happens to be filled with four adults with weak necks who for the rest of their blameless lives suffer from whiplash injuries.

In that case the first guy drives off and can't be traced so the second motorist appears to have a valid claim against the third guy and the insurance company coughs up.

A couple of lads pulled this stunt in the UK on several motorists at the same roundabout. Only problem was that there was an office block beside the roundabout and when the workers on the upper floors started recognising the driver of the rear-ended car as a serial victim they reported it to the police and he got a jail term for conspiracy to defraud.

Honestly? Has this happened??

coylemj

La Haine wrote: »

Honestly? Has this happened??

Which event are you referring to? The one in the UK happened about 1-2 years ago, it was reported on one of the motoring or consumer programs. The other stunt is a well known insurance fraud, known as a manufactured accident.

thenightrider

La Haine wrote: »

Honestly? Has this happened??

Yes it did it was in the news a good while back

Buffman

thenightrider wrote: »

Yes it did it was in the news a good while back

Not that story, but a similar one that was caught on camera.

markpb

coylemj wrote: »

That is a significant ruling by the judge. Previously I believe it didn't matter why the first car hit the brakes, once the second car rear ended the first it was an insurance claim.

I guess normally that's the case because it's a he said/she said case so the benefit of the doubt is given to the person in front but DB have front facing cameras which would have recorded the entire event and given their side of story a whole lot more weight.

Crasp

wtf is with that red escort at 1:53?! what was he at?

L-M

Crasp wrote: »

wtf is with that red escort at 1:53?! what was he at?

Playing a game; seeing how close he can get to the Astra before chickening out.

DonJose

"Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Matthew Deery, dismissed Ms Balogun’s claim and awarded costs against her."

Delighted!!!

Fey!

Good result against people attempted to scam.

The $64,000 question is...

...will Dublin Bus or their insurance company, along with the Gardai, go after her for attempting to defraud?

stevenmu

She also had the kids in the car. If (that's a big if) it was deliberate she should be locked away.

Bigcheeze

Fey! wrote: »

Good result against people attempted to scam.

The $64,000 question is...

...will Dublin Bus or their insurance company, along with the Gardai, go after her for attempting to defraud?

Of course not, this is Ireland. Everyone chances their arm now and again.