Just seen on 'Look North' that a motorcyclist who admitted to speeding and careless riding which caused the fatal collision in which a teenager died is to sue the teenagers family. The mother and father of the dead boy who, incidentally, are both severely disabled and require 24 hour care, are being sued to the tune of £134,000 to compensate for the injuries and loss of earnings which the motorcyclist sustained as a result of his own actions.

I'm just not sure what planet I am living on any more.

If this is true and being allowed, then something is severely wrong with our judicial system. If i were the family i would counter sue for loss of life and earnings of their son for a potential lifetime to the tune of around a million quid.

Originally posted by cloud
I'm just not sure what planet I am living on any more.
You and me both, I'm appalled by most judicial rulings nowadays.

It has yet to be heard in court. Hopefully the judge will throw it out and send a clear message not only to the motorcyclist but also to the lawyers, so devoid of any sense of decency or morality that they have encouraged this obscene venture purely to make as much money as they can out of the tragedy.

Originally posted by Mr_Ned
If this is true and being allowed, then something is severely wrong with our judicial system

We have a judicial system ? :suspect:

More like a Criminal Holiday camp. Do the crime don't get any time :roll:

typical solicitors, mercenary basxxxds, no qualms,no concience,just money grabbing at some one elses expence

This story sounds totally bizarre, unfortunately I didn't actually hear the details but if it is as clear cut as the original post states then I sincerley hope that the judge throws it out and fines the motor cyclist and his solicitors for wasting court time.

Originally posted by cloud
It has yet to be heard in court. Hopefully the judge will throw it out...
Yeah but that would be yet another waste of taxpayers money, and court time, just to determine something that should never have gone to court in the first place.

Unfortunately, common sense and the law are two completely different animals. If this crazy case goes ahead, then I like Mr_Ned's counter claim idea. It's just as valid surely.

Originally posted by RockDrummer
If this crazy case goes ahead, then I like Mr_Ned's counter claim idea. It's just as valid surely.
To me and you, yes. If the whole thing goes to court then the counter claim will probably be laughed at.

Originally posted by RockDrummer
Yeah but that would be yet another waste of taxpayers money, and court time, just to determine something that should never have gone to court in the first place.

Unfortunately, common sense and the law are two completely different animals. If this crazy case goes ahead, then I like Mr_Ned's counter claim idea. It's just as valid surely.

For your information, a Claimant needs to pay a listing fee before a claim is entered into Court, so it's their money rather than taxpayer's money.

I should think this claim stands no chance in the civil courts, as judges tend to have no qualms of getting rid of silly claims.

I've not seen any information on this case so I can't comment on it.

However, there is a big difference between bringing a case and actually winning it. We often hear of seemingly ridiculous cases being brought before the courts but it seldom makes the news when they're thrown out.

Originally posted by depoix
typical solicitors, mercenary basxxxds, no qualms,no concience,just money grabbing at some one elses expence
I blame the namby panby liberal minded goody2shoe politicaly correct bleeding heart brigade.

Personally.

:rant: ooh you can't hurt their feelings, what about their poor blah blah blah?

I saw in on Look North too, and all of the family were disgusted that this should be allowed to happen.

BTW the man concerned lives in Handsworth, but was surprisingly unavaliable for an interview with the BBC team, and neither were his legal team.

This was covered in the Sheffield Star last week, Look North are obviously short of stories and trawling through back issues.

They're just trying to show they do cover areas outside Leeds!

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
I blame the namby panby liberal minded goody2shoe politicaly correct bleeding heart brigade.

Personally.

:rant: ooh you can't hurt their feelings, what about their poor blah blah blah?

what the hell has this got to with liberalism? I'm sure you'd like to pin every problem society has on the left, but unfortunately you can't.

This case will be thrown out of court.

not like to my friend
do do
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Shine
For your information, a Claimant needs to pay a listing fee before a claim is entered into Court, so it's their money rather than taxpayer's money.

Yes but who takes the fee, processes the forms, arranges court dates.. and who pays their wages? It's public money, taxpayers money, and it's wasted on idiotic actions like this. Not just public money either, everybody involved with setting the case up and hearing it is completely wasting their time.

he shouldnt be allowed to sue the family. But the boys parents should have told him how to cross a road, apparantly the boy ran straight in front of the bike.

Originally posted by f_g
he shouldnt be allowed to sue the family. But the boys parents should have told him how to cross a road, apparantly the boy ran straight in front of the bike.

so why did he admit the offence "careless riding" then?

Originally posted by Cyclone
so why did he admit the offence "careless riding" then?

cus he was probably doing 100mph in a 40 limit :P "oh sorry officer, I didnt realise I was on a 1000cc motorbike and was doing over twice the speed limit, and I never saw that child because errr... well, I was going to fast!"

he shouldnt be allowed to sue the family. But the boys parents should have told him how to cross a road, apparantly the boy ran straight in front of the bike.

Are you talking about the same story? In the report I saw it was an 18 year old who was killed & he'd been driving a car.

Sheffield Star - Motorcyclist's cash claim story (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle2.aspx?ArticleID=918893&SectionID=58&Search=motorcyclist%20handsworth&Searchtype=any&SearchSection=58&DateFrom=012005&DateTo=012005&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx)

think am reading the wrong story. Am thinking about the one that happened last summer where a boy was playing chicken on a road in front of cars and bikes

"Carl Smith, of Romany Road, Twydall, Gillingham, ran out into Iota Road, on Saturday at 1600 BST, and was hit by the Suzuki bike.

The 30-year-old motorcyclist from Medway came off his bike and was taken to Medway Maritime Hospital with serious injuries.

The boy died at the scene of the crash and the road was closed for four hours."

thats the one i was thinking of

Originally posted by xafier
cus he was probably doing 100mph in a 40 limit :P "oh sorry officer, I didnt realise I was on a 1000cc motorbike and was doing over twice the speed limit, and I never saw that child because errr... well, I was going to fast!"
The motorcyclist in this story hit a car, killing the teenage driver.

This was not a "child" running across the road, it was a teenager, driving a car.

The motorcycle was speeding (significantly, hence the charges).

The car then turned right, across the path of the approaching motorcycle.

These are the only publicly available facts, and are not enough for me to comment on blame (either way).

Originally posted by f_g
"Carl Smith, of Romany Road, Twydall, Gillingham, ran out into Iota Road, on Saturday at 1600 BST, and was hit by the Suzuki bike.

The 30-year-old motorcyclist from Medway came off his bike and was taken to Medway Maritime Hospital with serious injuries.

The boy died at the scene of the crash and the road was closed for four hours."

thats the one i was thinking of

Pray tell me why that would be in the General Sheffield Chat Forum .....oh dear try to keep up :roll: :roll: :roll:

"Mr Machin, who was riding a motorbike, pleaded guilty to careless driving after admitting speeding, and was fined £100 for the offence."


If he had been seriously at fault he would have been charged with a more severe offense such as "causing death by dangerous driving" or would have almost certainly have been given a stiffer penalty than a fine alone (most probably a ban and perhaps some form of community-based punishment).

The article says he was "speeding" - this could mean as little as 35mph in a 30mph zone. It DOESNT automatically mean 100mph. Whatever his actual speed was, we can be *fairly* certain it wasnt anything blatantly dangerous as this would have certainly have drawn a heavier penalty. Despite all you read in the papers your average Magistrate is pretty well trained and regulated by higher Courts when it comes to sentencing.

You might also want to consider how often you (i.e all posters in this thread) drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone before going off on a rant about dangerous drivers ;)

When it comes to suing the family, firstly he is not suing the two crippled old folk. He is in fact suing their son's insurance company. No one in their right mind (certainly not anyone properly advised, that is) would sue someone who is broke, but anyone with house insurance/car insurance is usually covered against this sort of thing under their policy. Further, as the son is dead the liability (if any) that arises from the case would be a debt of his estate (or in this case his estate's insurers) and not the parents. Debts you leave at your death are not transmitted on to other family members (next of kin or whoever) - they die with you. If there are no funds in the estate to pay the debt they are treated in the same way as if you go bankrupt.

If the motorist could be shown to be partly responsible for the accident (not 100%, only partly) then he will have committed an act of "contributory negligence". This means that even though he came off worse in the crash and the biker was speeding, he was partially responsible and can be sued.

The existence of "contributory negligence" in an incident like this does not prevent criminal charges being brought against either party - in fact it is irrelevent. Civil law is applied when you are suing someone, not criminal. Therefore, those of you who are blaming a fault in the "justice system" for this happening are somewhat innacurrate due to a confusion of the two codes of law.

So, what will the biker actually get? Well, lets say his loss of earnings and expenses etc incurred as a result of the accident are around £80,000. On top of that add a bit for his pain and suffering and mental trauma etc. Lets say £100,000 in total. When assessing each party's "contributory negligence" the Court will take into account all of the circumstances of the accident and determine a percentage of blame for each party based on their actions.

Here it is likely to be weighted heavily against the biker - he may be assessed to be 80% responsible for the accident. That still leaves 20% on the shoulders of the driver. Therefore, his insurers will pay out 20% of the damages claimed. The rest will be the bikers proportion and, obviously, he is not going to pay himself anything.

So, to sum up -

1. The poor crippled parents will pay nothing and are not being sued anyway.

2. The biker has a right under civil law to bring such an action, which is not a "ridiculous" claim at all.

3. There has been no "failure" of our justice system.

4. The biker himself is not necessarily an evil monster purely because he was convicted of a minor driving offense as a result of the accident.

5. We know nothing of the drivers own conduct in the incident and portraying him as the innocent victim, purely because the consequences for him were worse than for those of the biker is illogical.



Still, it made a nice splash headline and you all got to indulge your prejudices about "evil lawyers", "failing justice system" and "PC/leftie-ness" etc etc for a while didnt you?

> The poor crippled parents will pay nothing and are not being sued anyway.
Nobody should be ordered to pay anything to the guy, insurance company or otherwise.

> The biker has a right under civil law to bring such an action, which is not a "ridiculous" claim at all.
Er, YES IT IS! Having killed somebody whilst committing an offence should not offer the opportunity to benefit from it.

> There has been no "failure" of our justice system.
Yes there has... The failure lies in the ability to bring the case to court in the first place.

> The biker himself is not necessarily an evil monster purely because he was convicted of a minor driving offense as a result of the accident.
Agreed - he is an evil monster for trying to benefit financially from an accident which - in your example you suggest - he may have been 80% to blame.

> We know nothing of the drivers own conduct in the incident and portraying him as the innocent victim, purely because the consequences for him were worse than for those of the biker is illogical.
True, but the simple fact is that a person who killed somebody through their own (admitted) carelessness, should NOT then be allowed to sue ANYBODY for any kind of compensation. So regardless of the legal ins and outs, something is wrong here, and it seems to me to be the law.

You'd think that someone who had caused so much misery through his own recklessness would be a victim of his own guilt and remorse for the rest of his life.

How DO these people sleep?

I believe that I read in the Star that he is in fact claiming from the insurers assosciation for damages as the car was not insured and shouldn't have been on the road .
Don't know if this alters opinions !

Originally posted by RockDrummer
Er, YES IT IS! Having killed somebody whilst committing an offence should not offer the opportunity to benefit from it.
So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

Does that sound fairer?

I suggest that until you know the full ins and outs of the case, you stop playing judge, juror and executioner.

Originally posted by Sidla
I suggest that until you know the full ins and outs of the case, you stop playing judge, juror and executioner.
Precisely, let's not forget people, the young lad who was unfortunately killed was driving uninsured (was the car roadworthy ?), and (at least allegedly) carried out an illegal right turn manoeuvre.

So far we've only heard so much of the story.

Wait for the full facts to appear before judging the issues.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sidla
[B]So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

Does that sound fairer?


Well....the law says that in a 30 mph zone, you must not exceed 30 mph. We all know (or should know if we have a driving licence) that if you hit a pedestrian at speeds over 30 mph, their chances of being killed are far more likely.

Driving a vehicle on a public road requires a huge degree of responsibilty. If you don't accept this responsibility then you should send your driving licence back to DVLA with a covering letter to the effect of 'sorry, don't accept the highway code.' Otherwise, observe the code and the law.

Originally posted by cloud
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sidla
[B]So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

Does that sound fairer?


Well....the law says that in a 30 mph zone, you must not exceed 30 mph. We all know (or should know if we have a driving licence) that if you hit a pedestrian at speeds over 30 mph, their chances of being killed are far more likely.



That doesn't necessarily answer the question posed.

I tend to agree with FF and Sidla on this one. Speed is definitely a strong factor in this equation, but let's not lose sight of the fact the reason that the biker was knocked off in the first place was due to the car driver. Having said that, without knowing the details of how fast the biker was travelling it's difficult to apportion blame as it could be equally possible that the biker was travelling at a pace such that the car driver could not see or hear him prior to committing to the maneuver.

However, as a biker I'm a little bit sensitive to the fact that in biker/car collisions the guy on the bike is usually assumed to be guilty of causing the accident and, similarly, 'didn't see you mate, sorry' is considered a perfectly good excuse for knocking somebody off. Yes, some bikers ride like they're late for an appointment with their maker but then heaven knows how many more boy racer mobiles I've seen endangering everyone else. We tend not to tar all car drivers with the same brush. Unless they drive BMWs, that is ;)

In terms of uninsured loss, I'm assuming people here can remember the death of F1 world champion Graham Hill? When his uninsured light aircraft came down killing him and all the occupants, the bereaved families were left with no choice but so sue the estate of the Hill family for their loss. The fact was Graham was liked by the families, was not blamed by them for the crash (adverse weather etc) but their sons and husbands had been killed and recompense was clearly due.

It's a horrible, horrible business and a distasteful pill to swallow but sometimes legal proceedings like that/this are justified.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets nest but I've got some fairly strong emotions when it comes to bikers being vilified and such this thread moved me to comment.

Its distastefull if you ask me.
Had the car driver survived then yes, fine sue him, but he died and part of his parents would have died with him to.
Putting a claim like that on them is discusting and should be thrown out.

Putting a claim like that on them is discusting and should be thrown out.

His parents aren't being sued/having any claim put on them - it must be horribly distressing for them to hear that there's not been the end to this that they thought there was though

Had the car driver survived then yes, fine sue him,

If there are grounds to sue him there's grounds whether or not he survived surely

Of course there is, but surely on grounds of morality not when he is dead.

Of course there is, but surely on grounds of morality not when he is dead.

If he was solely responsible for the accident then you'd hope that morality would stop him from making a claim like this (although it sounds as if he's claiming he wasn't solely responsible) either way the idea of bringing his claim to court is so justice can be done, surely.

Mouseman - fantastic post, and just what I would have posted if I had had time! :P

that does change things doesn't it.

It's amazing how if he'd be doing 29mph's you'd all no doubt be vilifying the car driver for driving without insurance. Yes 6 mph difference and it all becomes the motorcyclists fault. (We don't know it was 35 I realise that, just an example).

If the car driver contributed to the accident, which it sounds like he does. Then dead or not he is partly responsible.
We can assume that the poor disabled parents will probably be receiving compensation from the bikers insurance, I don't see why the biker is not entitled to compensation to the % of negligence that is assigned to the car driver.

IMHO driving without insurance is a much worse crime than speeding by 5mph's.

Originally posted by Cyclone
IMHO driving without insurance is a much worse crime than speeding by 5mph's.
Fully with you on that one Cyclone, and it's not just no insurance that bothers me, uninsured cars tend not to be roadworthy, with all the implications that brings...

I can understand when incidents like this happen that people react by saying that no claim should be allowed to be brought.

But, the law does not make judgements based on EMOTION - it looks at incidents like these purely in terms of apportionment of blame and calculating a financial sum so as to compensate people for the monetary losses they have incurred and the emotional trauma they have suffered.

It CANNOT be right to say that if you are partly responsible for an accident which happens to lead to your own death then you are absolved of all blame in the eyes of the law. In the Graham Hill example above that reasoning would have left many innocent people without any form of compensation.

Originally posted by Mouseman
I can understand when incidents like this happen that people react by saying that no claim should be allowed to be brought.

But, the law does not make judgements based on EMOTION - it looks at incidents like these purely in terms of apportionment of blame and calculating a financial sum so as to compensate people for the monetary losses they have incurred and the emotional trauma they have suffered.

It CANNOT be right to say that if you are partly responsible for an accident which happens to lead to your own death then you are absolved of all blame in the eyes of the law. In the Graham Hill example above that reasoning would have left many innocent people without any form of compensation.

I completely agree. You'll notice throughout most threads on here though that many people are unable to look at an issue without emotion, in fact some people seem only able to look at it from an emotive perspective rather than a logical one.

Originally posted by Cycleracer
Of course there is, but surely on grounds of morality not when he is dead.

So you wouldn't have made a claim against his insurance to replace your vehicle just because the person had died?

what if he can't afford to replace the bike himself? What if he needs it to travel the 50 miles to work so he can support his wife and 6 kids? What if he and his family are suffering real hardship because he lost his job after the accident? What if it wasn't his fault?

Let's not be so quick to judge, with so few facts.

Yes but doesn't the emotion often arise from the very fact that situations are illogical? It's the illogicality (if thats a word?!) of it that winds people up.

I know where you guys are coming from, and I do take your point, but I really think that the emotion in this case arises from the somewhat illogical ability of someone causing a death through carelessness being able to benefit financially from it. I'm sorry, I just think that is illogical.

Originally posted by cloud
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sidla
[B]So I'm driving at 35 in a 30 zone. You deliberately step out in front of me and you die. I was breaking the law and I killed you, and because you're dead there's no way you can be at fault. I get sent down for 10 years.

Does that sound fairer?


Well....the law says that in a 30 mph zone, you must not exceed 30 mph. We all know (or should know if we have a driving licence) that if you hit a pedestrian at speeds over 30 mph, their chances of being killed are far more likely.

Driving a vehicle on a public road requires a huge degree of responsibilty. If you don't accept this responsibility then you should send your driving licence back to DVLA with a covering letter to the effect of 'sorry, don't accept the highway code.' Otherwise, observe the code and the law.

Well... the law of life says that walking out in front of a car is likely to get you killed. If you walk out in fron of a car doing 30+mph then you are more likely to be killed than if you cross the road when a car is not coming.

Crossing a public road is a huge responsibility. If you don't accept this responsibility then you should not cross the road by yourself. Send your "I'm not a complete moron" certificate back to the INCM with a covering letter saying "Urghhh!" :loopy:

Originally posted by RockDrummer
Yes but doesn't the emotion often arise from the very fact that situations are illogical? It's the illogicality (if thats a word?!) of it that winds people up.

I know where you guys are coming from, and I do take your point, but I really think that the emotion in this case arises from the somewhat illogical ability of someone causing a death through carelessness being able to benefit financially from it. I'm sorry, I just think that is illogical.

If your assumption is correct, and the accident can be blamed on the carelessness of the biker, then I agree he should not benefit from it.

My point is that you don't know it was his fault. Without the facts how can people judge?

Originally posted by RockDrummer
Yes but doesn't the emotion often arise from the very fact that situations are illogical? It's the illogicality (if thats a word?!) of it that winds people up.

I know where you guys are coming from, and I do take your point, but I really think that the emotion in this case arises from the somewhat illogical ability of someone causing a death through carelessness being able to benefit financially from it. I'm sorry, I just think that is illogical.

If it were that simple yes. But he hasn't been charged with 'causing death by', so that's not what he did.
And clearly if the car driver had not been driving badly (I presume he would have also been charged if he'd lived) then he wouldn't have been killed. So you can argue that the car driver was 50% to blame, it's not like he was stationary when a crazed motorcycle road straight into him is it.

And compensation is not 'benefiting financially' it's set to compensate for material loss, and for the pain and suffering.

i think this absolutely stinks, the motorcyclist should be sued for wasting court time

Originally posted by Cyclone
compensation is not 'benefiting financially' it's set to compensate for material loss, and for the pain and suffering.

Absolutely, but if I act like an idiot and suffer "material loss" and cause meself some "pain and suffering" should I be compensated for being a fool? Of course not.

Thing here is... This thread started out as Person A committing an offence, killing Person B in the process, then claiming compensation from Person B's parents. Now it's become 'well apportionment of blame might come out at 50/50, or 80/20, or who knows?' - my argument was based on the first scenario and the consequent waste of court time and money, so I thank you for the debate, which I genuinely enjoyed, but I shall gracefully retire from the thread until the facts are established.

(There must be something slightly outrageous about it though for it to have made the TV news...?)

I know absolutely nothing about this but have one point.

If someone kills someone and gets charged with Careless driving and speeding and receives only a token fine it would suggest to me that they were not entirely at fault for an accident. If the pedestrian was crossing a road correctly then surely they would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving?

So it suggests to me that the pedestrian ran out into the road or wasn't paying attention and there was a witness to this.

just a thought.

So it suggests to me that the pedestrian ran out into the road or wasn't paying attention and there was a witness to this

Are you extending this to a hypothetical situation? There were no pedestrians involved - it was a (teenaged) car driver who was killed. There's a link further back in this thread that gives the story :)

I've just received a bit more information about this story. Apparently the motorcyclist is paralysed from the waist down which, I think you'll agree, adds another dimension to the situation.

Now we have the motorcyclist being knocked off and not being implicated in the death of the teenager who was driving without insurance and who has been blamed for the crash. The motorcyclist was speeding, that we know. And now he's spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Are we still going to vilify him for trying to get compensation?

To sum up this (and almost every other 'shocking headline')thread -

Reactionaries - Taking the headline at face value and expressing their rage at the immorality and injustice of the supposed situation.

Fire and Brimstone Brigade - Not interested in facts really, these folks just enjoy a good verbal lynching.

Verses

Realists - Assuming that the facts of the original story are painted in shades of grey. Realising that journalists like to trim facts to make a more compelling news story. The realist tends to avoid emotive orations.

Devil Advocates - Jumping to the defence of the target of the "Fire and Brimstone Brigade", regardless of whether they are some poor sap, or a Chilean dictator.

These threads would be much more fun if the people who posted to them were assigned to one of the above teams, rather than just playing on the same side each time :-)