RTA. No injuries. Ok to leave?

goz83

Assuming all details are exchanged, is it ok to leave after an accident?

What if one person tries to leave but the other insists on calling and waiting on the gardai for "peace of mind"? Curious after reading another thread what the legalities are, especially if someone tried to force you to stay and blocked your way, or tried to physically restrain you.

I am of the belief that if there are no injuries and details are excahnged, you go your own way and dont waste the gardais time, or your own waiting on them.

foggy_lad

once there are no obvious injuries there is no reason to stay once details have been swapped.

If a driver insisted on the Gardai being called I would stick around though but make sure I had cleared my vehicle off the road as much as possible and then insist on the Gardai breath testing myself and the other driver.

coylemj

foggy_lad wrote: »

once there are no obvious injuries there is no reason to stay once details have been swapped.

If a driver insisted on the Gardai being called I would stick around though but make sure I had cleared my vehicle off the road as much as possible and then insist on the Gardai breath testing myself and the other driver.

+1 assuming no personal injuries.....

There is no obligation to wait for the Gardai (who may never show up) as long as you supply the other driver with the relevant details which includes (1) the name and address of the owner of your vehicle (2) your name and address and (3) details of your insurance.

I listen to the Dublin City FM (103.2 Mhz) radio station most afternoons, they do the traffic reports and its absolutely amazing how, after the most minor of collisions, both drivers keep their vehicles in the same spot and generally fcuk up traffic for miles behind them while they wait for the cops who typically never show up - why should they for a fender bender when it's never going to result in a criminal court case?

All the law (S.106 RTA 1961) requires is that you keep the vehicle 'at or near the place of the occurrence' so there's no reason why you can't pull over to the side of the road, exchange your details with the other guy and then drive away.

(b) the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall keep the vehicle at or near the place of the occurrence for a period which is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of this section;

Even if someone is injured, the only additional obligation is that you must report the accident to the Gardai but you are allowed to do that at a Garda station, there is no obligation to hang around waiting for them to arrive though its probably advisable to do so in those circumstances.

BaronVon

Gardaí only investigate collisions that involve:

1. Personal Injury
2. Substantial Damage
3. An offence is disclosed or alleged

Other than that, they'll just ensure particulars are exchanged as mentioned above, and gather info for statisical purposes. No need to call them for minor tips when details are exchanged.

darklighter

Is there not an offence of failing to remain at the scene of an accident? Or does that only apply to a certain category of crash?

Obviously the Gardai in 99.9999999999999% of cases arent going to prosecute if you drive off after a minor tip but the possibilty always remains if it is in fact an offence.

The Bishop Basher

Having been hit by an uninsured driver where there was substantial damage that wasn't obvious at the time, I would call the Guards out for ANY and EVERY prang.

They may consider it wasting their time but i don't.

Little CuChulainn

Swanner wrote: »

Having been hit by an uninsured driver where there was substantial damage that wasn't obvious at the time, I would call the Guards out for ANY and EVERY prang.

They may consider it wasting their time but i don't.

I hope you at least have the decency to move the cars off the road.

Swap contact and insurance details. Take a few photos. Agree who will report it at the station. Notify insurance. Go on your way.

The Bishop Basher

Depends..

I was €3000 out of pocket after the last incident...

That won't happen again..

If i have to inconvenience a few people to make sure it doesn't happen so be it..

jcd5971

Swanner wrote:

If i have to inconvenience a few people to make sure it doesn't happen so be it..

Nice mindset.

The Bishop Basher

jcd5971 wrote: »

Nice mindset.

Is what it is..

As i say, I won't be left €3k down ever again.

hullaballoo

Swanner wrote: »

Is what it is..

As i say, I won't be left €3k down ever again.

How would you go about getting the €3,000 back?

The Bishop Basher

hullaballoo wrote: »

How would you go about getting the €3,000 back?

I might not get all or any of it back but if that happens, at least the scrote will be dealt with by the gardai and hopefully won't have an opportunity to do the same thing to someone else.

Look, I'm not going to deliberately block traffic or get in anyone's way if i can help it. I will however do whatever I feel is necessary at the time to protect myself in the situation..

GM228

Swanner wrote: »

Depends..

I was €3000 out of pocket after the last incident...

That won't happen again..

If i have to inconvenience a few people to make sure it doesn't happen so be it..

Isn't that what MIBI is for, once the other vehicle is identified your free to move your own vehicle!

The Bishop Basher

GM228 wrote: »

once the other vehicle is identified your free to move your own vehicle!

Identified by whom though ?

I wouldn't be comfortable until both the vehicle an the driver had been identified by a guard.

I'd also be concerned that someone driving with no insurance may not be all that honest so i'd be reluctant to move anything until blame had been established.. again, by a Guard.

Insurance companies can and will regularly settle in favour of the least cost option regardless of blame so again, I would want to protect myself against that happening.

I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that none of you have been hit and burned by an uninsured driver.

I used to think like all of you. That's why i didn't call the guards at the time.

Nothing like a bit of real world experience to change your perception though.

Homer

How would the guards having not witnessed the accident apportion blame? Apart from obvious rear end situations.. A lot of times it comes down to both parties blaming each other. Guards generally won't get involved in a civil matter from apportioning blame point of view? Did the driver that hit you have ANY documents in the window or were they forged etc?

Little CuChulainn

Swanner wrote: »

Identified by whom though ?

I wouldn't be comfortable until both the vehicle an the driver had been identified by a guard.

I'd also be concerned that someone driving with no insurance may not be all that honest so i'd be reluctant to move anything until blame had been established.. again, by a Guard.

Insurance companies can and will regularly settle in favour of the least cost option regardless of blame so again, I would want to protect myself against that happening.

I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that none of you have been hit and burned by an uninsured driver.

I used to think like all of you. That's why i didn't call the guards at the time.

Nothing like a bit of real world experience to change your perception though.

Gardaí don't establish blame in material damage accidents. They simply help people swap details of they aren't capable of such a simple task. The insurance companies settle the claim.

goz83

Thanks for the replies lads. Some people on the other forum seem to think you have to stay at an accident scene until the gardai arrived, even if it a slight tip.

The Bishop Basher

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Gardaí don't establish blame in material damage accidents. They simply help people swap details of they aren't capable of such a simple task. The insurance companies settle the claim.

No need to get patronising..

Anyway, the damage appeared minor. We swapped details. For some reason he actually gave me his name and address. Everything else was forged but looked fine.

We both agreed there was no need to call the guards.

So i did what all of you say you would do. We exchanged details and left it at that.

It was only after the fact that i discovered the damage was far more substantial then it looked and that he had no insurance.

So tell me.. If you were in a similar situation.. How will you know that..

1) The damage isn't more substantial then it appears ?
2) The details your being given aren't false ?

TherapyBoy

Swanner wrote: »

1) The damage isn't more substantial then it appears ?
2) The details your being given aren't false ?

1) It's unlikely that the Gardaí would be able to access the damage to your car.
2) If he gave you false details, he'd probably give the Gardaí false info too.

Unless someone is hurt or the incident is particularly serious calling the Gardaí is unnecessary in most minor RTA. Take lots of photos, record as much information as you can about them & their car and cross your fingers it all goes smoothly.

bellissima

In the Driver Theory Test it does say that accidents ie,one presumes, incidents involving two or more vehicles should be reported to the Insurance companies and the Gardai (maybe the Gardai do not have to be contacted there and then). It's not very clear. Where property eg a fence or a wall has been damaged, it is sufficient to report to the owner alone. If vehicles are causing an obstruction,the road should be marked in the relevant places and the vehicles taken out of the way.

punisher5112

hullaballoo wrote: »

How would you go about getting the €3,000 back?

Mibi is where you have to lodge claim.

The Bishop Basher

TherapyBoy wrote: »

1) It's unlikely that the Gardaí would be able to access the damage to your car.

I never suggested they would

But knowing I at least have genuine contact and insurance details for the other driver should this become apparent after the fact, would give me huge piece of mind.

TherapyBoy wrote: »

2) If he gave you false details, he'd probably give the Gardaí false info too.

He could try but the guard will be able to confirm his name, address, vehicle ownership, insurance and tax there and then before anyone leaves the scene.

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Unless someone is hurt or the incident is particularly serious calling the Gardaí is unnecessary in most minor RTA. Take lots of photos, record as much information as you can about them & their car and cross your fingers it all goes smoothly.

How will you know for sure that no-one is hurt ? Injuries often aren't apparent at the time due to adrenalin. I know of a guy locally who dropped dead hours after a minor collision. He had internal bleeding caused by the seat belt but had seemed completely unhurt.

Also how do you define "particularly serious" ? And how do you know your definition of serious is the same as a guards definition of serious ? Or indeed, the same as the other drivers definition of "particularly serious".

DubTony

Swanner wrote: »

Having been hit by an uninsured driver where there was substantial damage that wasn't obvious at the time, I would call the Guards out for ANY and EVERY prang.

They may consider it wasting their time but i don't.

So if it happened again and he told you he wasn't hanging around waiting for cops, what would you do? He gives you details and drives off. Are you going to try to stop him?

Little CuChulainn

goz83 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies lads. Some people on the other forum seem to think you have to stay at an accident scene until the gardai arrived, even if it a slight tip.

No, you are obliged to exchange information and report the matter.

Swanner wrote: »

No need to get patronising..

Anyway, the damage appeared minor. We swapped details. For some reason he actually gave me his name and address. Everything else was forged but looked fine.

We both agreed there was no need to call the guards.

So i did what all of you say you would do. We exchanged details and left it at that.

It was only after the fact that i discovered the damage was far more substantial then it looked and that he had no insurance.

So tell me.. If you were in a similar situation.. How will you know that..

1) The damage isn't more substantial then it appears ?
2) The details your being given aren't false ?

1)How will the Garda know that?
2)You won't. Neither will the Garda until he goes back to the station and checks it.

The Bishop Basher

DubTony wrote: »

So if it happened again and he told you he wasn't hanging around waiting for cops, what would you do? He gives you details and drives off. Are you going to try to stop him?

Not much you can do in that situation. I'd get photos of him and his car but if he's gone before the guards arrive all i can do is give them what i have and let them follow up on it. I'm certainly not going to get into a physical confrontation but if my car was blocking him in I wouldn't be moving it.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

1)How will the Garda know that?
2)You won't. Neither will the Garda until he goes back to the station and checks it.

The guard can confirm that the driver is who he says he is and that he has valid insurance before he leave the scene.

If he's not who he says he is and / or he doesn't have valid insurance then it's up to the guards to take it from there.

Little CuChulainn

Swanner wrote: »

The guard can confirm that the driver is who he says he is and that he has valid insurance before he leave the scene.

If he's not who he says he is and / or he doesn't have valid insurance then it's up to the guards to take it from there.

How would the Garda do that exactly?

hullaballoo

Swanner wrote: »

I might not get all or any of it back but if that happens, at least the scrote will be dealt with by the gardai and hopefully won't have an opportunity to do the same thing to someone else.

Look, I'm not going to deliberately block traffic or get in anyone's way if i can help it. I will however do whatever I feel is necessary at the time to protect myself in the situation..

GM228 wrote: »

Isn't that what MIBI is for, once the other vehicle is identified your free to move your own vehicle!

punisher5112 wrote: »

Mibi is where you have to lodge claim.

The MIBI don't cover material damage claims.

What I'm struggling to get past, though, is Swanner's attitude in relation to recovering damages. It seems entirely inconsistent.

It's ok where it's out-of-pocket expenses only, is it? It's not ok where you're injured?

It's funny that the law takes the opposite point of view.

The Bishop Basher

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

How would the Garda do that exactly?

By asking the driver for their details, checking their ID, confirming the given details on pulse etc. and asking further questions until satisfying themselves that all is correct.

They also have the ability to detain that person until such time as they're satisfied that all is correct.

As a joe blogs member of the public, all i can do is take pictures of potentially forged plates and documents and rely on the good nature and honesty of the uninsured person who's just driven into me.

hullaballoo wrote: »

What I'm struggling to get past, though, is Swanner's attitude in relation to recovering damages. It seems entirely inconsistent.

You've lost me Please explain..

Del2005

Swanner wrote: »

By asking the driver for their details, checking their ID, confirming the given details on pulse etc. and asking further questions until satisfying themselves that all is correct.

They also have the ability to detain that person until such time as they're satisfied that all is correct.

As a joe blogs member of the public, all i can do is take pictures of potentially forged plates and documents and rely on the good nature and honesty of the person who's just driven into me.



You've lost me Please explain..

For a minor RTA all the Garda will do is ask have details been exchanged and ask all involved to produce their documents within 10 at a station. The Garda have no way of verifying insurance details even at the station, all they do is photocopy what's presented. Until we get an insurance database, like the UK, your wasting a valuable resource on something minor that they can't do anything about.

The Bishop Basher

Del2005 wrote: »

For a minor RTA

So what's the definition of a "minor" RTA and where is it published ?

Del2005 wrote: »

The Garda have no way of verifying insurance details even at the station, all they do is photocopy what's presented. Until we get an insurance database, like the UK, your wasting a valuable resource on something minor that they can't do anything about.

I get all that but the guard can confirm the identity of the other driver. I can't. Once we have a name and address we can work from there regardless of details that emerge after the fact.

Without a guard present, i'm relying on an uninsured driver with forged documents who has just driven into me, damaged my vehicle and is personally liable for the costs, to give me his actual name and address.

Can you see the flaw in that plan ?

hullaballoo

Swanner wrote: »

You've lost me Please explain..

I don't understand why you think it is perfectly acceptable to seek to recover damages where the only injury you have is to your pocket but in circumstances where your very quality of life is negatively impacted by a lasting physical injury, you have absolutely no right to claim on the basis of your moral compass?

The Bishop Basher

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't understand why you think it is perfectly acceptable to seek to recover damages where the only injury you have is to your pocket but in circumstances where your very quality of life is negatively impacted by a lasting physical injury, you have absolutely no right to claim on the basis of your moral compass?

Ah ok. You're bringing other threads into it.

It's a different topic so i'm surprised you want to go there but fair enough..

I mentioned on that thread a number of times that i don't have an issue with anyone seeking compensation / costs when they have genuinely been left injured and out of pocket as direct result of someone else's negligence.

So for example, if you hit my car, i will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs. Nothing more. I'll even work with you to see if we can do it off insurance and keep your costs down should you want to go that route.

If you hit my car and injure me in the process, I will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs and cover any significant medical bills or out of work expenses I may incur. In other words, I won't be hassling you for a couple of hundred to pay an A&E bill but if i'm in hospital for 6 weeks with a shattered femur you may get a call.

Even then i'll only ever seek to recoup costs. I won't be looking for compensation on top. If I have a few sleepless nights, i'll just suck it up and deal with it as just another part of life..

As i said on that thread, I have permanent numbness and altered sensation on one side of my face as a result of a dental mishap. It's life long nerve damage and a golden opportunity to get some cash yet I won't be claiming because that's not how i choose to earn a living.

The people I have an issue with will see the same scenario as an opportunity to get some easy money. They'll claim whiplash, ongoing pain, reduced mobility, anxiety, inability to sleep, hindered social life etc etc etc They'll usually have been an avid hill walker, dancer or gymnast which they can no longer do at all as a result of their "injuries". It all adds to the final sum of course.

They'll claim all of that on top of costs and probably walk away with six figures. Now you may choose to believe that they're all genuine but I know they aren't. And it's those people i take issue with.

goz83

Swanner wrote: »

So what's the definition of a "minor" RTA and where is it published ?

It's true that even what appears to be a minor colission could turn out to be much worse. But then you would have to call an ambulance to every single accident and even then an injury could be missed. One can only make a judgement call. So, if there is a tap at 5kmph with a Ford Ka hitting a military tank, it's safe to say the driver of the tank might not have been injured by the tap. If on the other hand, two similar cars crash and there is significant damage, even if there are no immediately obvious injuries, it's a good precaution to get checked out, because as you have rightly pointed out, adrenaline can mask injuries unseen.

Swanner wrote: »

I get all that but the guard can confirm the identity of the other driver. I can't. Once we have a name and address we can work from there regardless of details that emerge after the fact.

Without a guard present, i'm relying on an uninsured driver with forged documents who has just driven into me, damaged my vehicle and is personally liable for the costs, to give me his actual name and address.

Can you see the flaw in that plan ?

If involved in an RTA, I would be asking to see the other drivers license, which is the best way I can think of to identify them. If that and everything is fake, the Gardai aren't going to get any further than that without a proper database.

Swanner wrote: »

Ah ok. You're bringing other threads into it.

It's a different topic so i'm surprised you want to go there but fair enough..

I mentioned on that thread a number of times that i don't have an issue with anyone seeking compensation / costs when they have genuinely been left injured and out of pocket as direct result of someone else's negligence.

So for example, if you hit my car, i will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs. Nothing more. I'll even work with you to see if we can do it off insurance and keep your costs down should you want to go that route.

If you hit my car and injure me in the process, I will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs and cover any significant medical bills or out of work expenses I may incur. In other words, I won't be hassling you for a couple of hundred to pay an A&E bill but if i'm in hospital for 6 weeks with a shattered femur you may get a call.

Even then i'll only ever seek to recoup costs. I won't be looking for compensation on top. If I have a few sleepless nights, i'll just suck it up and deal with it as just another part of life..

As i said on that thread, I have permanent numbness and altered sensation on one side of my face as a result of a dental mishap. It's life long nerve damage and a golden opportunity to get some cash yet I won't be claiming because that's not how i choose to earn a living.

The people I have an issue with will see the same scenario as an opportunity to get some easy money. They'll claim whiplash, ongoing pain, reduced mobility, anxiety, inability to sleep, hindered social life etc etc etc They'll usually have been an avid hill walker, dancer or gymnast which they can no longer do at all as a result of their "injuries". It all adds to the final sum of course.

They'll claim all of that on top of costs and probably walk away with six figures. Now you may choose to believe that they're all genuine but I know they aren't. And it's those people i take issue with.

I also don't see the logic in what you have said. I imagine that you would seek to be compensated if someone had accidentally broken the side window of your car, so why then would you not seek compensation for the A&E charge? Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me at all. The only kind of sense I can make of it is that you either don't value your own health, or you think that whiplash and such injuries are non injuries and people should just take it on the chin as I have seen others suggest.

Let me give you my experience on the matter. I'm a young man and have been unlucky enough to be in 2 rear end accidents a few years apart from eachother. Both had written off my cars, which had had not insignificant amounts of money restoring them.

The first accident left me out of pocket with the car. The whiplash injury was settled through the injuries board on the lower end of the scale, as I made a good recovery. It didn't have much of an impact on my quality of life overall, aside from a bit of annoying pain that lingered for well over a year.

The second accident was much worse. Nasty whiplash and a spinal injury needing surgery. Significant and ongoing pain. Almost lost my business and was heavily medicated for a long time. Suffered depression, was unable to drive for months. Had to pay thousands in medical expenses out of my own pocket. Enjoyment of life was non existent most of the time (imagine the feeling of a steak knife in your spine the whole time and then try to enjoy life). I wasn't an avid hill walker and my dancing days are over a decade behind me, but I have lost the ability to enjoy certain hobbies and do simple things around the home, such as loading the dishwasher, or carrying my kids, or putting the baby into her cot. You can't put a price on what I have been through and continue to go through. I wouldn't accept a multiple of millions to go through it. Yeah, there are people who milk things...in every area. It disgusts me when I see clearly excessive claims and I enjoy seeing scammers getting caught and their cases thrown out of court.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

The MIBI don't cover material damage claims.

They do in some circumstances when the uninsured vehicle is identified.

Otherwise you claim off your own insurance company (assuming your fully comp) and implement the MIBI no claims protocol.

hullaballoo

Swanner wrote: »

Ah ok. You're bringing other threads into it.

It's a different topic so i'm surprised you want to go there but fair enough..

Recovery of damages for negligence is the same topic, whether it's pure economic loss or personal injury.

It's not that I really want to go anywhere, I just don't understand the point of view that says that purely out-of-pocket expenditure should be paid by the negligent party but other losses should not.

Personally, I don't think that pure financial loss on its own should be a matter for compensation in negligence because it is against the spirit of the law that establishes that duty to have people who are simply at a financial loss, having suffered no other detriment, to be seeking recompense due to another's act or omission, unless the act or omission was intentionally to deprive. That comes under other heads of law rather than negligence, imo.

I mentioned on that thread a number of times that i don't have an issue with anyone seeking compensation / costs when they have genuinely been left injured and out of pocket as direct result of someone else's negligence.

Ok, fair enough. The problem is that you have a perverse view on what constitutes someone who has genuinely been injured. You are setting the bar very high and I can only conclude that you have never had an injury that has had any significance in your enjoyment of life or capacity to fully participate in it.

So for example, if you hit my car, i will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs. Nothing more. I'll even work with you to see if we can do it off insurance and keep your costs down should you want to go that route.

You are obliged to keep these costs down under a principle called mitigation of loss. It is a factor in every claim before the courts for personal injuries (as well as in other areas.)

If you hit my car and injure me in the process, I will expect you to cover the cost of the repairs and cover any significant medical bills or out of work expenses I may incur. In other words, I won't be hassling you for a couple of hundred to pay an A&E bill but if i'm in hospital for 6 weeks with a shattered femur you may get a call.

Hospitals have a specific level of charges for Road Traffic Accidents when you attend A&E as a result and they are on a scale of magnitude that would make your eyes water. Not everyone is aware of this but now you know.

Even then i'll only ever seek to recoup costs. I won't be looking for compensation on top. If I have a few sleepless nights, i'll just suck it up and deal with it as just another part of life..

No one gets compensation "on top." On top of what? You cannot quantify the financial impact of an injury to just an opportunity cost or medical expenses. On the one hand, you can quantify loss of earnings as it is a reasonably straight-forward proposition.

On the other hand, what if your injury means that you can no longer participate in your favourite past-time? Under your model, there is no value in this. For many people, life is about what they do with their time when not in work. They don't live to do a job and pay taxes, which is what they would be doing if their world-view dictated that they had to only conduct themselves in a way that was beneficial to society. They work so that they can afford to do things when they're not in work. These are the things people live for. For some people, it's walking in the hills, for others, it's playing golf or spending time playing with their children etc.

In my view, those are the most important things in life and if you are incapacitated from taking part in those things, that is where you should be compensated most. Money cannot replace these things and anyone who has suffered an injury that prevents them from living their life in this way will tell you they would give up all the money in the world not to have ever had the injury.

As i said on that thread, I have permanent numbness and altered sensation on one side of my face as a result of a dental mishap. It's life long nerve damage and a golden opportunity to get some cash yet I won't be claiming because that's not how i choose to earn a living.

Perhaps, because this is the most serious injury you have lived with, you cannot see how an injury could have the profound effect on someone's life that I can see. I am not putting your injury down as insignificant, it isn't, but it isn't pain or incapacity and it doesn't actually prevent you from doing what you want. Having said that, you may find as time goes on that it begins to impact you in ways that you hadn't considered. I sincerely hope it doesn't, btw.

The people I have an issue with will see the same scenario as an opportunity to get some easy money. They'll claim whiplash, ongoing pain, reduced mobility, anxiety, inability to sleep, hindered social life etc etc etc They'll usually have been an avid hill walker, dancer or gymnast which they can no longer do at all as a result of their "injuries". It all adds to the final sum of course.

We all have a problem with people who exaggerate their claims. It's fraud and it's criminally wrong. I couldn't countenance a situation where I was representing someone who was falsifying an injury.

But.

You go on to make reference to some recent cases that have been in the news where you are presuming apropos absolutely nothing that those people were manufacturing their complaints. That is really where I have the biggest issue with all of your arguments in this area. There is no evidence available to anyone reading into those cases that the injuries are exaggerated or in any way not as they have been presented. I know you have probably bought into the soundbite rhetoric on After Hours about being unable to prove soft tissue injuries but it's pure rubbish. Medical professionals whose years' of experience in diagnosing and treating these kinds of injuries prepare reports from the very beginning of a personal injuries claim. One of these is submitted with the PIAB application and PIAB usually get their own independent medical assessment before making any decision. If it goes beyond PIAB, there will be at least one assessment by a professional for the defendant(s).

If the plaintiff is lying or exaggerating their injury, the medical reports will make that clear. People who claim to have a sore back will not know what clinical findings add up to someone with a sore back. It is next to impossible to get a faked injury past an experienced medical professional once, never mind 3 or 4 experienced medical professionals.

They'll claim all of that on top of costs and probably walk away with six figures. Now you may choose to believe that they're all genuine but I know they aren't. And it's those people i take issue with.

You know they aren't despite no evidence whatsoever to bring you to that knowledge and despite a wealth of evidence from all directions to ward you away from that conclusion.

I just don't understand why.

The Bishop Basher

goz83 wrote: »

If involved in an RTA, I would be asking to see the other drivers license, which is the best way I can think of to identify them. If that and everything is fake, the Gardai aren't going to get any further than that without a proper database.

In my experience the Gardai are well capable of ascertaining whether someone is who they say they or not. You can ask for ID but without the authority of being a guard you're unlikely to have any success.

goz83 wrote: »

I also don't see the logic in what you have said. I imagine that you would seek to be compensated if someone had accidentally broken the side window of your car, so why then would you not seek compensation for the A&E charge?

I probably wouldn't. Would depend on the cost and the hassle. If you put up any resistance i'm not going to bother. I'll just pay it myself. Indeed, I have paid up for damage done to my house and car a number of times in the past.

goz83 wrote: »

The second accident was much worse. Nasty whiplash and a spinal injury needing surgery.... ...You can't put a price on what I have been through and continue to go through. I wouldn't accept a multiple of millions to go through it.

i'm sorry to hear you had to go through all that. It's clearly a genuine case and you should have had your costs covered and been compensated accordingly. I have no issue whatsoever with that and have never stated otherwise.

goz83 wrote: »

Yeah, there are people who milk things...in every area. It disgusts me when I see clearly excessive claims and I enjoy seeing scammers getting caught and their cases thrown out of court.

We're in agreement. That's all I was saying. I would be very slow to claim for anything myself but i'm not suggesting no one else should. I am however a big fan of personal responsibility and not chasing easy money at the expense of others. Case after case that i read about appears to be the latter. Now i'm sure most are actually genuine but I'm also pretty sure that many aren't.

brian_t

goz83 wrote: »

If involved in an RTA, I would be asking to see the other drivers license, which is the best way I can think of to identify them.

I wouldn't be showing my driving licence to any unauthorised person.

Be careful who you show your personal documents to you could find yourself the victim of Identity theft.

The Bishop Basher

hullaballoo wrote: »

Recovery of damages for negligence is the same topic, whether it's pure economic loss or personal injury.

Yes but the topic of the thread is whether to call the Gardai to an RTA or not.

I appreciate the time you've taken to put together a lengthy response but i really don't want to go back down this avenue as it's a dead end for me and you...

hullaballoo wrote: »

On the other hand, what if your injury means that you can no longer participate in your favourite past-time? Under your model, there is no value in this. For many people, life is about what they do with their time when not in work. They don't live to do a job and pay taxes, which is what they would be doing if their world-view dictated that they had to only conduct themselves in a way that was beneficial to society. They work so that they can afford to do things when they're not in work. These are the things people live for. For some people, it's walking in the hills, for others, it's playing golf or spending time playing with their children etc.

I completely agree with all of this. I have said multiple times that people should be awarded compensation and costs where their lives have been genuinely impacted. I've never disputed that. It would take quite a bit of an impact for me to claim but i accept that we all have a right to do so..

Just for the craic i did a quick search on dental injuries and permanent numbness to see what my injury is worth...

£25,000 apparently :eek:

http://www.dentallaw.co.uk/case-studies/woman-awarded-25000-in-compensation-after-dentist-caused-nerve-damage-resulting-in-permanent-numbness/

But i won't be claiming because I have a good life, i'm comfortable and that £25,000 won't give me feeling back so what's the point unless i'm just hungry for the cash ?

hullaballoo wrote: »

In my view, those are the most important things in life and if you are incapacitated from taking part in those things, that is where you should be compensated most. Money cannot replace these things and anyone who has suffered an injury that prevents them from living their life in this way will tell you they would give up all the money in the world not to have ever had the injury.

Once again. I totally agree.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Perhaps, because this is the most serious injury you have lived with, you cannot see how an injury could have the profound effect on someone's life that I can see. I am not putting your injury down as insignificant, it isn't, but it isn't pain or incapacity and it doesn't actually prevent you from doing what you want. Having said that, you may find as time goes on that it begins to impact you in ways that you hadn't considered. I sincerely hope it doesn't, btw.

Actually it is insignificant. Especially when compared with yours. And you're correct, it doesn't stop me doing what i want although i regularly bite my mouth without realising which can cause problems but in the grand scheme of things it's nothing. But believe me, i've had my fair share of injuries and health issues. I've been through a lot in 40+ years and unfortunately I know well what it's like to live with a chronic illness and chronic pain.

But despite being "insignificant", my injury is still worth £25,000 on a day out in court which to me, perfectly illustrates the point.

hullaballoo wrote: »

We all have a problem with people who exaggerate their claims. It's fraud and it's criminally wrong. I couldn't countenance a situation where I was representing someone who was falsifying an injury.

Once again we're in agreement.

hullaballoo wrote: »

You go on to make reference to some recent cases that have been in the news where you are presuming apropos absolutely nothing that those people were manufacturing their complaints. That is really where I have the biggest issue with all of your arguments in this area......

Fine. You're obviously a little less cynical and a little more trusting then I am. When i see someone look for a six figure sum for falling and cutting a knee, i'm going to call foul on it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

hullaballoo wrote: »

I know you have probably bought into the soundbite rhetoric on After Hours about being unable to prove soft tissue injuries but it's pure rubbish. Medical professionals whose years' of experience in diagnosing and treating these kinds of injuries prepare reports from the very beginning of a personal injuries claim. One of these is submitted with the PIAB application and PIAB usually get their own independent medical assessment before making any decision. If it goes beyond PIAB, there will be at least one assessment by a professional for the defendant(s).

I've witnessed someone successfully and fraudulently claim for whiplash. They did everything that you mention and kept their appointments religiously. They got a 5 figure sum. They hadn't a jot of pain. They fooled every one of the professionals.

Also, over half of PIAB cases go on to court, why ? Because they payouts aren't big enough. That also speaks volumes.

hullaballoo wrote: »

If the plaintiff is lying or exaggerating their injury, the medical reports will make that clear. People who claim to have a sore back will not know what clinical findings add up to someone with a sore back. It is next to impossible to get a faked injury past an experienced medical professional once, never mind 3 or 4 experienced medical professionals.

See above..

hullaballoo wrote: »

You know they aren't despite no evidence whatsoever to bring you to that knowledge and despite a wealth of evidence from all directions to ward you away from that conclusion.

I just don't understand why.

Probably because i'm a jaded and cynical old bollix who has witnessed what money can make people do way too many times to have much faith in anyone when it comes to free and easy cash.

Look, we disagree on a few fundamental points. We also agree on many. I do get most of the points you make, I just disagree.

To sum up in one sentence, even if a cut on the knee was actually worth €60k, which it isn't, i'll never be able to accept that the liability for you tripping over a piece of timber on a hill walk can ever sit anywhere else but with you, the person controlling the legs, that did the tripping.

hullaballoo

The reality is that we're not a million miles apart. I am very cynical myself and I have also seen cases that are undoubtedly embellished if not downright fraudulent and it is part of my professional duty to be alive to the possibility that every case that arrives on my desk might be just such a case. In my experience, the vast majority are undoubtedly genuine cases.

I will reiterate that my main issue with your arguments is alleging fraud against people on the back of nothing other than what you call your cynicism. You have made these assertions about named individuals, effectively accusing them of wrongdoing simply because you don't believe that a certain kind of accident/injury can lead to the kinds of life altering implications they proved in court. It isn't fair to those individuals to have people who only have strongly biased media reports (journos and lawyers share a mutual disdain) making such accusations out in public about them when there is no reason to suspect their injuries are not genuine (except cynicism and an intrinsic belief that everyone else is on the make.)

One thing that I know is that each case turns on its own facts and they will never be fully presented afterwards, in particular by the old media. An example is a recent enough report of a woman who had a cut on her hand and was awarded a substantial sum as a result of her case. Of course, that was the extent of media reports. No one felt the need to set out that the cut on her hand had directly resulted in a condition that means she will have permanent acute pain from her shoulder to her hand for the rest of her life.

Anyway, that's about as close as we'll get I think. I have no doubt that as a lawyer, my world view is tainted and I would not hold other people to my own belief set. However, I would ask for the sake of decency that you consider the implications of what you say about identifiable individuals who just may have legitimate injuries and don't deserve Judge Dredd-style witch hunts off the back of a half-baked newspaper clipping?

Little CuChulainn

I hate to burst your bubble Swanner but it's very rare a Garda will do a person check or a car check for a simple RTC. They would have to be very suspicious of the individual to make an issue of their ID. They also have no way of confirming the insurance details.

Ursus Horribilis

Don't forget you can be involved in a RTA and feel fine at the time. It can take several hours or a few days for the symptoms to start showing.

The Bishop Basher

@ Hullaballoo

I can appreciate that you're coming at this from a legal perspective. I have friends and family in the game and in my experience you're a considered bunch. Unlike myself who would be more of a blunt instrument that just blurts it out regardless of the implications.

But i take your point regarding individuals and specific cases. We can't know all the facts and so we can't make an honest judgement. Add to that some biased reporting and there's no hope of an objective assessment.. I get all that and will try and adopt a more generic approach..

TBH though, the fraudulent aspect is really only a side show..

It's the fact that many of these cases go ahead at all that I struggle with. The concept that you could be responsible for me tripping on something just doesn't make any sense to me. If I was blind or you pushed me into it then maybe but otherwise i have eyes, i'm responsible for my own safety and if i trip and fall, regardless of the injury, it's no-one else's fault but mine. That also goes for a piece of pavement sticking up or a hole in the road.

I get that the law sees it differently and as such i have to accept it but that doesn't mean I have to agree.

Anyway, just to finish up, i did a search on my exact injury...

http://www.dentists-advantage.com/sites/DA/rskmgt/casestudy/Pages/OverfillOfMaterial.aspx

I could be worth $510,000 :eek: Now as tempting as that would be, I still wouldn't feel like a cent of it was mine. Maybe i'm the gob****e :pac:

The Bishop Basher

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble Swanner but it's very rare a Garda will do a person check or a car check for a simple RTC. They would have to be very suspicious of the individual to make an issue of their ID. They also have no way of confirming the insurance details.

That's fine. As i said, I just need to know the name and contact details of the other driver. Once we have that we can sort everything else out after.

Regardless of what happens, i'll have a much better chance of getting the correct information when done through a Guard so I'll take my chances and call them regardless of your views on the matter.

I've no idea why it bothers others so much. I'm a law abiding citizen who might need to call them 5 times in as many decades. It's not like i'm a drain on their resources or anything. If they have a more urgent priority then I wouldn't expect them to attend ...

Honestly, I don't have a problem with you not calling them.. what is the issue...

topmanamillion

I can't believe this poster has opened up this thread, seeing as he embarrassed himself on the thread he's speaking about. See here http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057621785/7/#post100427053

"I would be on my way. If he tried to hold me against my will for the Garda to arrive to an accident with no injuries, well then he might find the Garda is coming to help patch busted lip. "

He has also failed to mention the other driver in that thread was suspected to be under the influence of a substance.

Also no one suggested forcibly keeping anyone at the scene,the OP of this thread was the only one that said that.

Little CuChulainn

topmanamillion wrote: »

I can't believe this poster has opened up this thread, seeing as he embarrassed himself on the thread he's speaking about. See here http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057621785/7/#post100427053

"I would be on my way. If he tried to hold me against my will for the Garda to arrive to an accident with no injuries, well then he might find the Garda is coming to help patch busted lip. "

He has also failed to mention the other driver in that thread was suspected to be under the influence of a substance.

Also no one suggested forcibly keeping anyone at the scene,the OP of this thread was the only one that said that.

He was right though. The other driver has no obligation to remain at the scene once they have given the appropriate information and you have no legal power to stop them leaving.

topmanamillion

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He was right though. The other driver has no obligation to remain at the scene once they have given the appropriate information and you have no legal power to stop them leaving.

As I said no one suggested forcibly holding the other person.
The OP of this thread was the only one that brought it up.
That's why I find this thread bizarre.

goz83

topmanamillion wrote: »

I can't believe this poster has opened up this thread, seeing as he embarrassed himself on the thread he's speaking about. See here http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057621785/7/#post100427053

"I would be on my way. If he tried to hold me against my will for the Garda to arrive to an accident with no injuries, well then he might find the Garda is coming to help patch busted lip. "

He has also failed to mention the other driver in that thread was suspected to be under the influence of a substance.

Also no one suggested forcibly keeping anyone at the scene,the OP of this thread was the only one that said that.

We have our very own sherlock on boards. Good job son. Though I can't recall any embarrassment. Why would I then mention the other forum/thread at all? I'm also quite sure I explained in a follow up post why I referred to restraint. I even mentioned in that thread that I had asked for confirmation of the subject matter in the legal forum. But thanks for adding the link for me inspector. Was not possible on the phone.