A few years ago, my client who I shall call Miss B was involved in a terrifying road traffic accident in South Yorkshire. She was very young at the time and a rear seat passenger in a car being driven by one of her parents on a dual carriageway.
For an unknown reason, a lorry driver changed lanes without looking and collided with the car at speed, sending it spinning across the road and striking the central reservation. My client was extremely lucky that other motorists were able to stop in time to avoid further collisions.
The car was severely damaged and later written off. All three emergency services were summoned. My client watched as her parent was taken to hospital by an ambulance, with grandparents being summoned to collect her and her sister.
This was an extremely traumatic time for the whole family which caused months of upset to my young client, made worse by her sister’s resulting fear of travelling in cars, nightmares, distress and change of personality. Fortunately for Miss B, her cuts and bruises cleared up within two months but the psychological effects endured for over a year.
We submitted a claim to the lorry driver’s insurers who accepted liability for the accident at an early stage. After we obtained reports from two medical experts including a psychologist, the claim was settled for a sum exceeding £3000 which is now invested in an interest-bearing account and will be paid out to our client shortly after her eighteenth birthday. Our client’s legal fees were paid by the insurers.
But what if the Civil Liability Bill was in place?
You may think that was a fair outcome and we would agree with you. If the Civil Liability Bill had been enacted before the accident, it would probably have been quite different.
As the injury element of the claim was likely to be worth under £5000, Miss B’s case would be designated as a small claim. That means that her legal fees would not have been payable by the opponent and, if she had instructed solicitors via her parents, those fees (including the fees of both doctors and the Court) would probably have amounted to most or all of the compensation, leaving her with little or no compensation. The alternative would have been for her or her parents to have handled the claim themselves against the multinational insurance company which announced turnover of around 10 billion pounds earlier this year.
What chance would they or any other person who is not legally qualified have against such an opponent? It is possible that the insurer would have denied liability, leaving Miss B with the choice of starting Court Proceedings or abandoning what is a perfectly valid claim.
The insurer may also have argued that the claim was worth far less that its true value so the claim could have been settled for much less than it was and offered a derisory sum to the parents. They would have had a choice of taking a small sum for their daughter, perhaps a few hundred pounds, or taking on the insurance giant (which would undoubtedly have instructed solicitors) in the Courts.
Our client would probably have ended up with either nothing or much, much less than she did. This shows how the Civil Liability Bill, if enacted, would deny Miss B and many thousands like her proper access to justice. The Bill must be opposed and if you agree, please tell your MP and urge them to oppose the Bill which is due to be debated in both Houses of Parliament soon.
We will, of course, be happy to advise you about any type of personal injury claim, whatever Acts receive the Royal Assents and you will be able to reach us at P.I.Dept@tayloremmet.co.uk or 0114 218 4000.
0 Comments