Simultaneous damages claims for different incidents

Chemical Byrne

If a person were to pursue two or more personal injury claims simultaneously, lets say a bicycle accident and a motor accident or a trip/slip accident, how would the fact of having concurrent claims affect either case?

What slant would the defendant's insurers take on the plaintiff having several cases for PI open simultaneously? Would if give them any room to whittle down their level of liability by pawning off some of the injury on the other accident(s) or could they claim the plaintiff was a chancer?

Would taking concurrent claims put the plaintiff at a disadvantage ?

Pat Mustard

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Would taking concurrent claims put the plaintiff at a disadvantage ?

It increases the difficulty of the proofs required from the plaintiff. Each defendant will argue that the injury/damage/pain experienced by the plaintiff was caused by the other defendant/accident.

The plaintiff will need to have medical evidence from a doctor to show which injury was caused by which accident and which injury was aggravated by which accident.

Also, the two cases would need to be linked insofar they would be listed for hearing consecutively, on the same day.

Chemical Byrne

I thought as much Pat.

Also, the two cases would need to be linked insofar they would be listed for hearing consecutively, on the same day.

Why would this be necessary?

I'd imagine having 2 cases would throw up a red flag of suspicion straight away.

If the two injuries were fairly distinct it would, at least I would think, make it easier to argue for damages. Lets say the motor accident was a rear ending resulting in neck/back difficulties and the bike or trip/slip accient was a shoulder/wrist injury from the fall?

Pat Mustard

There would be no red flag. If there is an overlap in injuries, the cases should be listed for hearing together so that the evidence is available to deal with both matters, and issues of who caused which injury can be dealt with.

If there was no overlap of injuries, there may be no need to link actions.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Chemical Byrne

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I presume this is done as a matter of procedure in all cases?

kilp10

Am actually in this position at the moment having had two bad accidents within a reasonably close space of time as a result of other drivers' stupidity. Have some overlapping injuries and others distinct to the second accident. Aim is to list the two together, same insurance company so makes it a bit easier at least from our side, they can argue with themselves as to how to split it out among the defendants... don't be too quick to judge those who do have more than one open, life deals bad cards sometimes...

kennM

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I presume this is done as a matter of procedure in all cases?

I know with my PI claim one there were questions around any prior personal injury claims/injuries/accidents so high likelihood it'll come to light.

stepinnman

There is a limit to the amount of effective searching you can do. There's no real central register of District or Circuit Court cases - at least not one that's easily acceptable - and whilst the High Court search facility is very good, it is only as good as the data inputted and can require quite specific searches or searches of variations of names.

All of which is at least partly why the legislation in P.I. Cases shifts the onus to the Claimant/Plaintiff to disclose the fact of any previous accidents and to swear their replies or any positive assertions or allegations on Affidavit.

If it subsequently transpires that they have withheld pertinent information it is likely to be used against the Plaintiff either in settlement negotiations or in Court. If the omission is sufficiently serious it will even be open to the Court in dismissing the case to refer the matter to the DPP as an incidence of insurance fraud.

In the 'good old days' there was a system called insurance-link which was very useful in identifying 'serial claimants', but as far as I know Data Protection legislation has largely out pay to that. An example of the laws of unintended consequences I think.

kennM

Not declaring to both would be a very risky strategy IMO... any shred of dishonesty during the PI claim I'd suspect will put any case in serious jeopardy.

Honesty is the best policy IMO... if you're honest you don't need a good memory either.

Will it lead to both claims trying to blame one another for severity of injuries, I'd strongly suspect so. Will it be a tough time absolutely. On a completely unbiased point I'd recommend having a read through my thread I posted a while back... might help keep things in order.

Just search for "Personal Injuries" and filter by "Most Thanked", I think it's second there..... war stories or something like that. Hope it helps.

stepinnman wrote: »

There is a limit to the amount of effective searching you can do. There's no real central register of District or Circuit Court cases - at least not one that's easily acceptable - and whilst the High Court search facility is very good, it is only as good as the data inputted and can require quite specific searches or searches of variations of names.

All of which is at least partly why the legislation in P.I. Cases shifts the onus to the Claimant/Plaintiff to disclose the fact of any previous accidents and to swear their replies or any positive assertions or allegations on Affidavit.

If it subsequently transpires that they have withheld pertinent information it is likely to be used against the Plaintiff either in settlement negotiations or in Court. If the omission is sufficiently serious it will even be open to the Court in dismissing the case to refer the matter to the DPP as an incidence of insurance fraud.

In the 'good old days' there was a system called insurance-link which was very useful in identifying 'serial claimants', but as far as I know Data Protection legislation has largely out pay to that. An example of the laws of unintended consequences I think.

NUTLEY BOY

There are a few basic principles covering this area.

The plaintiff is entitled to indemnity and not to make a profit. Therefore, you cannot claim for the same injury twice and be compensated twice over.

If injuries can be distinguished as between two accidents that is easy to resolve as between defendants e.g. a broken leg in accident 1 and a broken arm in accident 2.

It gets messy when you cannot split the causation of a particular duplicated injury as between separate accidents. In practical terms the defendants can negotiate a split between themselves. This does not affect the plaintiff as he will receive his proper entitlement. If defendants cannot agree a split between themselves a court will do it for them.

The preceding point assumes that both defendants are liable. It becomes even more strangulated where the issue of liability is not the same in both case e.g. defendant 1 is conceding liability for their accident but defendant 2 is contesting liability for their case. Again, this can be resolved by negotiation between plaintiff and defendants or it can be dealt with by a judge.

Three brief observations about injuries acquired prior to another accident ;

i) If the plaintiff has an accident and those injuries resolve fully before the second accident the defendant in the second accident has no liability for those prior injuries i.e. no causal connection.

ii) If the plaintiff has an accident and those injuries are not fully resolved at the time of the second accident the defendant's liability should only extend as far as the pain and suffering inflicted directly and additionally in that second accident.

iii) If the plaintiff has a previous accident and his symptoms resolve BUT he is left with a predisposition and or his condition is symptomatically quiescent a second accident that lights up a serious set of pre-existing symptoms may well saddle the defendant with full liability for what arises from the second accident on the basis of the "eggshell skull" or "take your victim as you find him" rule which is one of the exceptions to the reasonable foreseeability rule.

I prefer to negotiate..........:D