Personal Injury claim against family member?

Bluesky2b

Here is what happened....

We had a party. The brother in-law (after a good few beers) picks up the sister in-law. He then starts to run with her on his back around the wet grass. He then slips and she falls. She breaks her collar bone.

She is now looking for compo from us, as it happened on our property!!!!

sdanseo

Bluesky2b wrote: »

Here is what happened....

We had a party. The brother in-law (after a good few beers) picks up the sister in-law. He then starts to run with her on his back around the wet grass. He then slips and she falls. She breaks her collar bone.

She is now looking for compo from us, as it happened on our property!!!!

She should be looking for compo from the sibling who caused her injury, not the sibling who owns the place where it happened.

Sorry to insult your family here, but what an unbelievably callous bint she must be.

c montgomery

:eek:Jesus H Christ

What a miserable b1tch. I cant offer any legal advice but id shut them out and never speak to them again.

Can she prove it? Id just deny it happened on my property.

seamus

That it happened on your property is largely irrelevant. She has to prove that you were in some way negligent in your duty of care towards her. Since you have no control over your grass getting wet and no obligation to ensure that it is dry, you have no liability here.

Bluesky2b

this is going to sound even worse. she has already got money from the brother in-law....... he said he took out a small loan.

She now wants more from us by putting it through our home insurance.

nuac

It was stupid careless behaviour. Any claim should be contested.

blueythebear

Bluesky2b wrote: »

this is going to sound even worse. she has already got money from the brother in-law....... he said he took out a small loan.

She now wants more from us by putting it through our home insurance.

If you put it through your home insurance, I'm sure the insurance company will refuse any claim. It's ridiculous. Tell her in no uncertain terms that you will not be paying anything to her. If she wants to push it, she should apply to the injuries board. Also, mark her off the Christmas Card list...

coylemj

blueythebear wrote: »

If you put it through your home insurance, I'm sure the insurance company will refuse any claim.

I wouldn't be so sure. Look what happens with motor whiplash claims, they pay out and then screw the policyholder over the next few years because no other company will quote him for a renewal.

If she claims against the OP for (say) five grand the insurance company will in all probability pay out because some lazy pen pusher couldn't be bothered to do the right thing and tell her to take a walk.

blueythebear

coylemj wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. Look what happens with motor whiplash claims, they pay out and then screw the policyholder over the next few years because no other company will quote him for a renewal.

If she claims against the OP for (say) five grand the insurance company will in all probability pay out because some lazy pen pusher couldn't be bothered to do the right thing and tell her to take a walk.

True but perhaps, with whiplash claims, the potential for ongoing issues which would greatly increase the payout by the insurer mean that it is always best for the insurer to try and negotiate an early settlement.

I just think in this case that a drunken slip on wet grass in the circumstances described would not ground a reasonable claim in negligence and certainly, if I was the insurer, I'd fight any such claim tooth and nail.

Delancey

I would agree that any insurere in such a claim situation should fight it tooth and nail - whether they will is another matter entirely.
Insurance companies are great at giving out about a compo culture but they never seem to reflect on how their willingness to settle and avoid litigation contributes to this culture.
A few well publicised instances of claimants having costs awarded against them after their spurious claims are kicked out might make a lot of people reflect on whether claiming is such a good idea.

coylemj

Delancey wrote: »

A few well publicised instances of claimants having costs awarded against them after their spurious claims are kicked out might make a lot of people reflect on whether claiming is such a good idea.

Most litigants who take such spurious claims don't have any assets worth chasing so having costs awarded against them doesn't represent any kind of deterrent and the willingness of ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers to take on such cases and pursue them all the way into court ensures that they won't stop any time soon.

Hayte

Renter's or homeowner's insurance should cover injury to a guest in your home. When its over wet grass though its hard to see how the claim is going to stack up. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurer disputes the claim (you know, seeing as it involves drunk people acting the bol.locks).

If you have been served with papers, you should cease talking about it here and start talking to a lawyer who can advise you better than any of us.

MagicSean

To be honest, i think your brother in law is an idiot for paying her. she was on his back. If anything, she caused the fall.

Victor

Wasn't there a case where a judge suggested that people with thin skulls should avoid towns on market days (high risk of excessive drinking and fighting)?

MagicSean wrote: »

To be honest, i think your brother in law is an idiot for paying her. she was on his back. If anything, she caused the fall.

????

slimjimmc

MagicSean wrote: »

To be honest, i think your brother in law is an idiot for paying her. she was on his back. If anything, she caused the fall.

That's an odd way of looking at it , have you considered the fact it was the brother-in-law who encouraged her to get on his back in the first place and he was the one who done the running around the garden and he was the one who slipped?

The incident would never have happened if he didn't become an active participant too.

shaneybaby

slimjimmc wrote: »

That's an odd way of looking at it , have you considered the fact it was the brother-in-law who encouraged her to get on his back in the first place and he was the one who done the running around the garden and he was the one who slipped?

The incident would never have happened if he didn't become an active participant too.

There is some element of Contributory negligence alright.

Interesting to see how an insurance company would deal with it. coylemj is propbably right with his "pen pushers" remark but i usually find the handlers for injury cases at least well clued in and pretty sharp.

Mr. Presentable

Go round to her home to discuss it with her. Trip on the step on the way out.

Problem solved

Bluesky2b

Going to get some legal advice and try to sort this mess out. I do like the comment about tripping on the way out of her home!!!

MagicSean

slimjimmc wrote: »

That's an odd way of looking at it , have you considered the fact it was the brother-in-law who encouraged her to get on his back in the first place and he was the one who done the running around the garden and he was the one who slipped?

The incident would never have happened if he didn't become an active participant too.

He didn't force her to get on his back or force her to stay on it when he started running.

RangeR

slimjimmc wrote: »

That's an odd way of looking at it , have you considered the fact it was the brother-in-law who encouraged her to get on his back in the first place and he was the one who done the running around the garden and he was the one who slipped?

The incident would never have happened if he didn't become an active participant too.

The incident would never have happened if she said no.

NUTLEY BOY

My 10 cents worth ;

1. OP better notify his liability insurers - the occupiers liability insurers and, if different, his personal liablity insurers.

2. DO NOT have any discussion or negotiation with the injured party about the incident as that breaks one of the conditions of your policy.

3. OP does owe a legal duty of care to the claimant both as the occupier and, personally, as the host of the party.

4. Whether or not there has been a breach of the duty of care to the claimant is an entirely different matter altogether and that will turn very much on the facts. Which set of facts is another matter. Drunken recollections are often very clear by the time of trial

5. Although it is not procedurally allowable to do so I would love to draft the defence to this claim and plead that the plaintiff is a total wagon :)

slimjimmc

MagicSean wrote: »

He didn't force her to get on his back or force her to stay on it when he started running.

RangeR wrote: »

The incident would never have happened if she said no.

True, but my point is that she's not necessarily the cause of the fall as MagicSean strongly suggested, both parties had their part to play in it. Note that OP says the BIL picked her up, that could mean he grabbed her in a fireman's carry or it could mean she willingly got on piggyback style, and either way she may not have expected him to start running. It's not all clear-cut given what little we know of the circumstances.

nuac

Many judges would throw out a case based on these facts.

the auld Latin still applies - Volenti non fit injuria,

NUTLEY BOY

nuac wrote: »

Many judges would throw out a case based on these facts.

the auld Latin still applies - Volenti non fit injuria,

Yes, but did she actually consent ? If not, volenti cannot apply.

234

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Yes, but did she actually consent ? If not, volenti cannot apply.

Volenti non fit injuria was replaced by the waiver provision in the 1961 Act.

NUTLEY BOY

234 wrote: »

Volenti non fit injuria was replaced by the waiver provision in the 1961 Act.

Civil Liability Act 1961 ?

What section ?

nuac

Sorry forgot that