A friend is being sued because a student fell off his 125cc bike during training for his part 1 test.
To put this in to perspective, the pass rate this school has, is close to 95% 1st attempt for both pt1&2, and they pride themselves on being good at what they do.
I really wish this ambulance chasing, money for nothing approach to life would go back to where it came from. Britain, nay, the world was a much better and cheaper place to live before.
Unless your friend did something stupid its a worthless attempt to get money out of him. Should be the company doing the training anyway
TJ, my friends business is the school. sorry for the confusion
Same applies - unless he did something stupid he is in the clear. Its an attempt to extort money effectivly
exactly.
It gets on my wick. Just like the silly stickers plastered all over bike kit, to pre-empt law suits upon the use of lights, pedals and or even cycling itself! I mean who would buy a 29er carbon frame for $OOdles without first knowing how to ride?!!?!?!!!
The world as I want it has gone to bed and isn't coming out to play 
Your friend has a driving school, no?
There is a contract between the driving school and the student, no?
Within said contract there is a clause stating that the student has a certain duty of care to themselves and certain responsibilities, no?
Student signed the contract after reading it?
You friend hasn't done anything negligent, have they?
Your friend has an insurance company to handle this kind of thing, no?
Where's the problem?
If your mate did, or didn't do something, which either caused or contributed to the accident then there may be a case to answer.
What does the notification from the IP's solicitor say?
I take it he has public liability insurance, just put it in the hands of the insurance company.
He's trying it on! Most claims are based on the assumption that you won't want to face the possible legal costs, and inconvenience of contesting a claim and will settle instead.
Tell him to blow it out of his arse! I imagine he'll soon dissolve back into the sewer from whence he came
Don, my question in reasonable terms is why is this all suddenly necessary!
I know this is all about risk etc, but who was the useless gimp that first decided to take advantage, and why are we the victims of this self fulfilling nightmare.
Its the same for insurance costs the world over. Surely the point of insurance is about protecting the innocent, hence it's legal requirement in most cases. At what point did it become a gravy train for the morally and ethically challenged!
[/rant]
At what point did it become a gravy train for the morally and ethically challenged!
At what point did it become a gravy train for the morally and ethically challenged!
When a. The insurance industry decided to ditch it's moral duty to it's clients and started paying out on low level claims because it's cheaper than defending them, and b. When personal injury lawyers recognised the whole life implications of serious accidents and persuaded the judiciary to award the corresponding compensation.
come back common sense, all is forgiven
Surely the point of insurance is about protecting the innocent, hence it's legal requirement in most cases. At what point did it become a gravy train for the morally and ethically challenged!
An insurance company is there to make money. Full stop! And claims lawyers are essentially vermin
There was a staggering statistic recently about how much Manchester City Council had paid out annually for parasites spuriously claiming for trips and falls. It was eye-watering
I feel passionate about this, I suppose its because the common decent public are being taken for a ride on all counts, and there seems to be no mechanism to keep this in check other than the pillars of capitalism through the threat of competition.
help
Some people will look for any financial 'compensation' before considering others, it's how our society is.
Bit of common sense shooduv prevailed in this case. Pursuing action over a flimsy stupidly overpriced bit of jewellery which, considering the type of school and nature of it's pupils, might not have bin the best idea to wear, is just callous and nasty, imo.
Shoon't even be possible to sue the parents of a child with such issues anyway. FFS. Probbly only doing it cos they can't claim off the school's/LEA's insurance... 
Teh change came when no win no fee was introduced allowing people to make spurious claims without any cost to them
The stupid claims are always pushed by the media, and its an easy bandwagon to jump on. But I do wonder how that compares to the number of cases where the setlement would actually seem quite fair if we were aware of all the facts or the "injured party" has no legal recourse because of the financial costs of going legal, and how often lawyers turn down the no win no fee type cases.
Elf - quoting the standard as fact? The story does not add up at all and is likely a load of rowlocks
Just heard the mother on the radio, TJ (which is why I searched for the story online).
Basically, a teacher at a Special Needs school wore a very expensive flimsy piece of jeweller to work in an environment where there's a high likelihood of children lashing out. The child did not intend to break the necklace, but just lashed out. The necklace wasn't even visible as the teacher was apparently wearing a polo-necked top.
That someone can demand payment for something like that, considering the context and issues involved, from people who aren't at all wealthy, is a joke. The family have paid up for fear of being taken to court (if they lost it would cost a lot more), but tbh I hope someone with some sense in the education system/LA takes the teachers to task over this. Petty and vindictive, and the real victim in this is the child. It's just callous and nasty.
What should happen, is that any jewellery worn to work in such an environment is done so at the wearer's own risk. Simple as.
Oh that sickens me.....deeply
elf - there is a load of things wrong with that. Going to court would not have cost the family any more, a repair would have done, there is more to that story than the mother is saying is my bet
Teh change came when no win no fee was introduced allowing people to make spurious claims without any cost to them
Yes, BUUUTTTT... it was interesting to hear from the family of Milly Dowler who said that without "no win, no fee" they could not have sought compensation from News International (after they hacked into her cellphone).
in the letter to the prime minister, the Dowler family said they were "lucky" they were able to claim under the current system, and without the insurance that the conditional fee agreement provided, they "would not have been able to start a case or even threaten it".-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15027185
Funnily enough, the law on all of this is well established, and hasn't really changed a great deal for a very long time.
But jerking knees is so very comforting, isn't it?
graham - thats where the frivolous claims really started from in the UK - does the change overall allow better access to justice? maybe
there is more to that story than the mother is saying is my bet
I'm just going by what the mother said in the radio interview, tbh. The school, inertestingly, hazzunt made any comment despite being invited to by newspapers and the BBC. Apparently the offer to pay for a repair was turned down, and a new replacement demanded.
Point is though, why should parents of a child with Special Needs feel they are forced to pay out for someone's lack of common sense?
I'm all for those responsible being held to account for any damage or suffering they cause, but to penalise the parents in this way is just callous and vindictive in my onion. It's not their fault, and the child can hardly be held to be responsible for their actions, as they're below the age of criminal responsibility for a start.
Personally, I wooduv just told them to get stuffed.
thats where the frivolous claims really started from in the UK
Agreed.
does the change overall allow better access to justice? maybe
That's the sticking point. The "no win, no fee" does have a valid part to play in supporting justice. But sadly it also allows for the "where there's a possibility of some kind of blame; there's a claim" pond life.
Finding a balance is tricky - getting rid of it completely keeps the knee jerk crowd happy and may win votes, but could actually be a retrograde step.
In my simplistic view, it is whole heatedly abused, so abolish it, and then create another way for all of those unable to pay for justice. Set guide lines to make sure ambulance chasing actions become a thing of the past.
Also in my simplistic view it would better serve us all to remove liability in regards to RTAs and just let the Police bring action against individuals at fault, and only then allow compensation to be argued upon. That way frivolous cases would stop.
Simplest truth: you can't trust the public at large to always do the right thing, so police it.
Child lashes out and breaks something - parents have to pay for the damage. Simple.
I'm sure half of the kids with (allegedly) ADD/ADHD/whatever could do with a good clip round the ear...
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
