Compensation Claims and Evidence Perceptions and Reality.

Compensation Claims and EvidencePerceptions and Reality

Perceptions v Reality

• Perceptions– Claiming compensation is easy

• Reality– Evidence based

Claims Management companies

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy?

• Complex claims –no witnesses & claimant no recall

• Fatal collisions without witnesses

• Contributory negligence assessing respective blame 50:50 80:20

• Collision involving young children- no fault for very young children

• So how easy or difficult is it to prove a case?

Case Examples Mr T and his Seat Belt

• Mr T elderly retired hit head on in RTA collision

• Serious crush injuries to his legs

• Defence admit liability argue contributory negligence failure to wear seat belt.

• Problem A & E notes state “unrestrained “ in vehicle

Case Study Mr T & his seat belt

• Contradictory evidence• Interview treating consultant who recalled the

case and took photos very bad seat belt bruising• Difference to the claim on these facts 15%

deduction of damages• Seat belt issues constantly raised on cases

Mr B a mystery incident

• Pedal cyclist in collision with car on wide two carriageway road

• Inexplicable how it happened • client catastrophic head

injury no recollection• Only witnesses defendant

driver and his passenger.

Mr B

• Controversial evidence driver’s passenger• Witness statement sent to defence expecting an

offer/settlement proposal • Response: estranged girlfriend all lies• trial 3 days• Judge preferred our evidence and 2/3rd liability in

claimants favour.

Miss J – PTSD claim

• Horrific collision bus and small car driver killed at scene

• Sister goes looking for him comes across the scene and sees mangled car suffers PTSD

• Claim rejected by insurers• We track down the police officers - vivid and

powerful statements at this point insurers accept she was at scene

Miss J PTSD Claim

• But deny PTSD • Our medical evidence proves PTSD • Miss J wants case over takes low offer to bring to

an end• Defence next argument costs• Each step was contentious high evidential burden

Final case study J - boys on bikes

• 3 boys out for cycle ride park up at a disused factory for lemonade

• Accosted by security guard who aggressively pursues the boys down hill

• Boys frightened – tight turn boy J fails the turn has defective brakes hits lamp post and is killed

J boys on bikes

• Security guard prosecuted 3 times causing death by dangerous driving – 2 no verdict finally pleads to lesser charge

• Civil claim liability denied.• We take statements from:

– witnesses who saw guard confront boys aggressively– other car users who saw the chase, – friends and family who knew the boy’s character – the two boys who had been with the deceased

Young J boys on bikes

• All the statements were distressing to take • Long 3.5 year fight for compensation• Family finding it hard, other problems to contend

with • “Time bomb” offer to finish

• Not about money but justice

Evidence Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy

• The claimant bears the burden of proof• Evidence can be intrusive • Finding and dealing with the evidence can be

distressing • Circumstances may not be enough • Struggle and stress on families.• The reality is very different to the popular

perception