Third payout for being rear ended

29-09-2017 09:35AM

BPKS wrote: »

Said this on another thread but I'd love to know the solicitor who keeps taking on this fellas cases. Or would it just drum up more business for said solicitors if it was public knowledge?

Huh?

It is public knowledge. The court lists with the names of solicitors in each case are available on court diaries available online...just use Google!

Did you actually think it was some secret and the basis of a conspiracy theory about drumming up more business?

Some of the stuff here that people think are valid theories...:D:D

osarusan · 29-09-2017 09:41AM

Nermal wrote: »

Change the law so that injuries for which scientific evidence cannot be obtained (back pain, whiplash) don't qualify compensation.

You might say you have a sore neck, your doctor may agree, and the judge may say you're not lying. But if it doesn't show on an X-ray, you should get nothing.

So if I'm crashed into by somebody else who is ruled to be at fault, and have back pain which is acknowledged by a doctor and a judge, I would have to pay by myself for any physiotherapy I needed?

Hitman3000 · 29-09-2017 09:47AM

Nermal wrote:

You might say you have a sore neck, your doctor may agree, and the judge may say you're not lying. But if it doesn't show on an X-ray, you should get nothing.

Soft tissue damage to the best of my knowledge does not show up on an x-ray, but it is a real injury. Perhaps compensation can be given in the from free physio therapy sessions.

baylah17 · 29-09-2017 09:54AM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Soft tissue damage to the best of my knowledge does not show up on an x-ray, but it is a real injury. Perhaps compensation can be given in the from free physio therapy sessions.

So loss of earnings, inability to participate in normal social activity should be disregarded,?

arctictree · 29-09-2017 09:55AM

I'm amazed that someone gets bumped by a car and needs a 10K payout but go play a contact sport and get hit 20 times in an hour and no worries.

Nermal · 29-09-2017 09:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying acceptance of conditions can only be based on lab results and you would not accept the patient's own description of their condition and the observations of medical experts?

I can accept them, and I might even sometimes believe them, but they should not qualify for compensation. The 'observations of medical experts' in these cases amount to 'patient says he has a sore neck'. That's not evidence of a standard that should merit compensation.

osarusan wrote: »

So if I'm crashed into by somebody else who is ruled to be at fault, and have back pain which is acknowledged by a doctor and a judge, I would have to pay by myself for any physiotherapy I needed?

baylah17 wrote: »

So loss of earnings, inability to participate in normal social activity should be disregarded,?

Correct.

29-09-2017 09:59AM

arctictree wrote: »

I'm amazed that someone gets bumped by a car and needs a 10K payout but go play a contact sport and get hit 20 times in an hour and no worries.

Not that amazing. The same punch to the head may have different legal consequences if delivered in a pub or in a boxing ring.

Hitman3000 · 29-09-2017 10:00AM

baylah17 wrote:

So loss of earnings, inability to participate in normal social activity should be disregarded,?

In the spirit of the thread, I don't think the main subject of the thread suffered a loss of earnings. Do you?
As for social activity I refer to my suggestion of physiotherapy.

29-09-2017 10:01AM

Nermal wrote: »

I can accept them, and I might even sometimes believe them, but they should not qualify for compensation. The 'observations of medical experts' in these cases amount to 'patient says he has a sore neck'. That's not evidence of a quality that merits compensation.

No they don't. At all. Have you seen medical reports in such cases? They don't really just say "patient says he has a sore neck" do they?

user2011 · 29-09-2017 10:03AM

Has she been given penalty points/banned from driving for ya know dangerous driving, not paying due care and attention.

osarusan · 29-09-2017 10:09AM

Nermal wrote: »

I can accept them, and I might even sometimes believe them, but they should not qualify for compensation. The 'observations of medical experts' in these cases amount to 'patient says he has a sore neck'. That's not evidence of a standard that should merit compensation.

Correct.

I think your suggestion might seem like it makes sense in the context of this particular crash, but in general, it is a knee-jerk reaction that is beyond stupid.

BPKS · 29-09-2017 10:14AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh?

It is public knowledge. The court lists with the names of solicitors in each case are available on court diaries available online...just use Google!

Did you actually think it was some secret and the basis of a conspiracy theory about drumming up more business?

Some of the stuff here that people think are valid theories...:D:D

When reporting cases like these, the newspapers should say, Joe Bloggs, of Take, Any, Chanchers & Co Solicitors represented the claimant.

It is known there are certain legal eagles in every town and city that make their living from these cases.

It would be nice if the public saw these lads for what they are.

But on the other hand it would also be like free advertising for them. Back to the good ol days of No Foal, No Fee.

Nermal · 29-09-2017 10:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No they don't. At all. Have you seen medical reports in such cases? They don't really just say "patient says he has a sore neck" do they?

Putting words in my mouth. They don't say that, they amount to that.

coL · 29-09-2017 10:30AM

dmc17 wrote: »

His wife's insurance will skyrocket after all these claims against her. How will she afford her renewal next year. If only there were someone who could help her offset the increased cost..............

The logic of what they are doing seems a bit flawed to me. Surely the wife is at fault for crashing into the back of someone so her insurance will skyrocket (if she can even get quoted) and will stay high for a lot of years to come. I don't really see the gain to them over the long run, am I missing something?

This seems like the episode of Fr Ted where the priest had to crash the car just to pay for the insurance!!!

SEPT 23 1989 · 29-09-2017 10:49AM

A Cheann Comhairle,

Robbie is a 17-year-old young man.

The apple of his mother’s eye.

His future ahead of him, the world at his feet....Yet he walks with his head down.

No more.

Neck braces for all

Enda Kenny Mar 1, 2017

Sue Pa Key Pa · 29-09-2017 10:49AM

Nermal wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth. They don't say that, they amount to that.

I've seen loads of medical reports. Some run on and on, others wouldn't fill an A4 page, many conclude with what you've just said. In reality, whiplash (a horrible thing) is what a patient says it is as it can't be proven

29-09-2017 10:50AM

Nermal wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth. They don't say that, they amount to that.

Only the same way as a cancer diagnosis amounts to "you're sick, next".

alchemist33 · 29-09-2017 10:51AM

I presume their insurance premiums have become massive?

29-09-2017 10:55AM

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

In reality, whiplash (a horrible thing) is what a patient says it is as it can't be proven

But that is true for many medical conditions. Many diagnoses are based on observation and analysis of what the patient says about their condition.

Either way, we seem to be moving from the point of the thread. Which as I understood is not so much about quantum and the limits of medical science in showing whiplash on a sheet of x ray or mri film, but the fundamental issue of liability.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 29-09-2017 10:56AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

I presume their insurance premiums have become massive?

There are illegal ways of keeping your premiums down and while they may result in your policy being voided, any person injured by your actions will still be paid. And the gift keeps giving

arctictree · 29-09-2017 11:11AM

coL wrote: »

The logic of what they are doing seems a bit flawed to me. Surely the wife is at fault for crashing into the back of someone so her insurance will skyrocket (if she can even get quoted) and will stay high for a lot of years to come. I don't really see the gain to them over the long run, am I missing something?

If the wife doesn't normally drive and just got insured (and a provisional licence) for the purposes of this racket then its a win win all around. She wont need to get insured again and the payout will be many times more than her initial premium. I'm assuming the insurance companies cant discriminate based on ethnicity etc

Hitman3000 · 29-09-2017 11:12AM

arctictree wrote:

If the wife doesn't normally drive and just got insured (and a provisional licence) for the purposes of this racket then its a win win all around. She wont need to get insured again and the payout will be many times more than her initial premium. I'm assuming the insurance companies cant discriminate based on ethnicity etc

It was her second crash with him as a passenger.

diomed · 29-09-2017 11:16AM

A harrowing tale of family misfortune.

Hitman3000 · 29-09-2017 11:16AM

diomed wrote:

A harrowing tale of family misfortune.

Yet somehow lucrative.

punisher5112 · 29-09-2017 11:19AM

No wonder she rear ended with that sack of spuds in the passenger seat.... I would say the brakes couldn't handle it.

Imagine the payout they would have got if it were themselves that were rear ended.

Its no surprise at all they are getting away with it..

Career criminals.

jmayo · 29-09-2017 11:25AM

Business Cat wrote: »

The problem with "soft tissue injuries" is that they are virtually impossible to prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt.

I can go to my doctor say I was rear ended, feign pain when asked to perform daily rotary tests like turning my head or stretching arms above my head.

Doctors can only provide a diagnosis based on the evidence presented.

Place a compo cap on injury payments for non provable injuries like whiplash and a large amount of frivolous claims will go away.

Actually scammers can be found out.
For a start the insurance company should be all over this guy and use private detectives.

Doctors and OTs can quiet quickly ascertain if some people are exaggerating their injuries.
People actually often let slip subconciously by their movements.

Deleted User wrote: »

I love cases like these when a judge says they don't believe parts of the claimants' stories but sure here's some cash anywayz.

Ah but shure according to our resident legal expert it has nothing to do with the legal profession, the justice system, etc.

And here we go, right on cue....

Deleted User wrote: »

Ultimately the problem is not with Judges, or the law, or Solicitors, or Insurance Companies, or Doctors.

The problem is simply that it's so very difficult to detect. Judges have to rely on direct evidence, not hunches, not on the basis of the ethnic identity of the parties - an extremely dangerous undercurrent here. Oh and the idea that because of their socio economic background Judges have some affinity with travellers is laughable.

If 2 people in a car, the driver and passenger, say there was no fraud, is a Doctor supposed to say the passenger didn't sustain an injury, is the Solicitor supposed to brand that passenger a liar?

Ehh the judge did basically say he didn't believe half the stuff and his track record speaks volumes.

Anyway Conor when are you setting up in Ennis ?
I hear there is mighty business in compo claims.

punisher5112 · 29-09-2017 11:31AM

I've always been wary of cars in front and keep a good distance but these are a new type of stupid where I will end up being rear ended....

Keep your distance even coming onto clear roundabouts as I've seen so many times the car in front will move but suddenly stop for absolutely no reason.

Nermal · 29-09-2017 11:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, we seem to be moving from the point of the thread. Which as I understood is not so much about quantum and the limits of medical science in showing whiplash on a sheet of x ray or mri film, but the fundamental issue of liability.

Liability for what? There's no real proof this man is injured. He just says he is.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 29-09-2017 11:52AM

Deleted User wrote:

Either way, we seem to be moving from the point of the thread. Which as I understood is not so much about quantum and the limits of medical science in showing whiplash on a sheet of x ray or mri film, but the fundamental issue of liability.

On the contrary. Liability is not an issue, it is cut and dried. You rear end somebody and you are responsible for the injuries of the people in both vehicles. Quantum is the crux of the problem. It is so lucrative that it is well worth a go, without any consequences if it fails

topper75 · 29-09-2017 11:52AM

This story is about the judge and nobody else.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/thousands-people-sign-petition-judge-8654302

Scumbag liars and cheats do what they have always done. That is NOT news!

The new part is the judge and his awarding the money. Insurance company must appeal this and furthermore where fraud is established, a meaningful punishment ought to apply to that claimant.

Anyway, as the ultimate losers here ourselves, we may have some laugh out of it:
"Are you perhaps the same Albert Gladstone Trotter who fell down a cellar at ..." :-)

Third payout for being rear ended

Comments