[Closed] KId falls off on BMX track so parents consider legal action.

Digby Lloyd, 12, suffered a broken arm and cuts to his face and legs after the crash...
Sharon, 44, from Styal, said: "Digby looked like he had been in a car crash."

Ummm...

[img] [/img]

Doesn't look too horrifically injured to me love.
Arm in a stookie, is that it?

is it cynic-al's kid?

[quote=GrahamS ]Doesn't look too horrifically injured to me love.
Arm in a stookie, is that it?

Yeah, but what about that haircut? I presume the paper didn't think her suing the barber was newsworthy enough.

Awesome! Well done digby.

You've moved one step up the human scale. Try not to follow your mum alone her personal evolutionary path.

Even if you are ginger,

he's got a decent looking bike..good
he may well get the sport from mixing with other riders..good
he then may make his mum see sense - hopefully

and get her to buy him some protection...
he may then get to keep bmxing

with the court awarding costs against the legal aid board for funding such a stupid appeal case.

I hope she gets sued for wasting the courts time.
Stupid bitch.

You're saying someone got legal aid for a civil action in negligence against you?

I think MoreCashthanDash was working for the organisation sued or its insurer, but yes, back in the day virtually all personal injury claims were funded by legal aid. Then the Government changed the law to permit and encourage no-win-no-fee claims to save it money.

Claims like this have always been attempted, long before the concept of 'ambulance chasers' became popular.

Only one brake? Bike not fit for legal road use? Negligent Parent?

(always rode brakeless when I was a nipper)

Me and my five year old ride there.
Ironically, as he has a full face helmet and pads (like the signs tells you to) when he does stack it he just get up and brushes himself down. A bad crash might need a hug but as I'm supervising (like the signs tell you to) it's not a problem.

Proper boils my pi$$. Sharon should be made to lay in the track whilst the locals do tailwhips over her.

Poor digby though. First she gives him ginger hair, then THAT name and now he'll probably not be allowed to play with his mates at the track. Actually feel sorry for him.

[URL= http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg74/enotsnad23/Mobile%20Uploads/photo-3.jp g" target="_blank">http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg74/enotsnad23/Mobile%20Uploads/photo-3.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

My lad at the track of doom!

its obvious what the problem here is...

.. WRONG SIZE WHEELS

Bit of a non story at this stage tbh.

Any Solicitor would advise her that if the council defend she may face costs. Depends on whether Stockport council has a history of vigorous defence or mitigating costs.

Her words are 'considering' and 'in talks'.

Hot air

Me and my seven year old daughter have been getting into BMX down there. As said above, she wears full face, pads etc. and rides under supervision.

Last time I was in Stepping Hill (the local A&E) the advice cards they handed out for my collar bone and concussion were sponsored by, and adverts for, a firm of ambulance chasing solicitors - how screwed up is that?

those tracks look great fun

Exile same with Trafford A&E.

I guess the Hospital Management need to pay/top up their salaries somehow

Biggest problem was a lot of insurers will pay out if it is cheaper than fighting it.

I think this is the heart of the problem. The culture of smallish payouts to save legal costs. Ironically I think the insurance industry doesn't loose out with this culture of pay outs. The insurance company gets a % of the total takings. More claims actually means more money. They also benefit from the fear factor and more people being scared ino taking out insurance

I think the mothers attitude is interesting. I think its partly guilt on her part realizing that she hadn't really taken her responsibilities seriously. Secondly there does seem to be a zero risk culture thing about which is scary.

With both my own kids I've had moments of "We wouldn't be allowed t do it if it was actually dangerous". With me trying to explain actually no its really dangerous that's why we:

Mustn't unclip both safety lines

Ride into a tree

Go into a corner too fast

Walk to near the edge

Perhaps we are lucky she doesn't live near here

[img] [/img]

I guess the Hospital Management need to pay/top up their salaries somehow

NHS salaries are set centrally by an independent pay body if facts were to matter here.

Nurses in general don't top up their salaries

Some doctors will see you privately as a top up....

I've heard of a couple of nurses who would see you privately to top up their salaries, though I may have misunderstood the advert. 😳

The insurance company gets a % of the total takings

Ampthill, I'm sorry but that is total nonsense

Freeclaim solicitors have been advertising in Stepping Hill for years. It's simply revenue for the hospital and as the hospital has no financial links with any potential defendants there is no conflict of interest. The fact that the defendant may actually be another publically funded body such as the Council is neither here nor there.

As I said, this is the normal day to day in the world of PI claims. I am sure Freeclaim or some other solicitor will be willing to at least take a punt on this claim

PaulMc i think you mis understtod. I failed to press the"send post" button and ended up further down the thread than I intended

The insurance company gets a % of the total takings

What I meant by this quote was that actually larger claims benefit the insurance industry. I'm in no way implying that the NHS benefit from claims on a % basis

ooh! Bruntwood park looks a lot more interesting than it was in my day. It is populated by stupid parents though, as demonstrated by the time when a toddler was up to it's neck in the pond. The horrified parent dived in to save the child, the toddler then stood up and walked out of the 12" of water (newt infested sludge), leaving a very wet parent behind... 😆

back in the day virtually all personal injury claims were funded by legal aid.

@konabunny - it was so long ago now that the injury photos were in black and white, which quite often was just as well....

Young Diggers has too much of a look of a ginner Terry Christian for this to be anything other than karma...

The poor lad looks like he's wearing a syrup. Did he land on his head, sans helmet?

I agree the Mum has got the wrong outlook on this.

Ironically one of the best local riders you'll see sessioning that track has a ginger ponytail.

If any of you visit the Indoor or Platt, feel free to come chat about hair colour prejudice with me if you like.

Had the kid been from a different cultural group (rather than hair) would you focus in on that as an issue?

@gravitysucks judging by the top your kid is riding in (looks like a velopark bmx top) then there's a good chance he was coached the basics by a ginger too.

Ampthill, I think I understood what you meant but still don't get your point. Insurers don't get any %. No claims, large or small 'benefit insurers' other than perhaps legal costs as a percentage of the total spend tend to be lower in larger loss claims. Insurers take premiums and invest them and their sole aim is to minimise the amount they pay out, be that in damages or costs. Ultimately for insurers decisions to settle or defend come down to money.

On a micro scale the insurers try to minimise pay out. However I believe that the current culture of lots of claims is partly the result fault insurers

Settling for smaller amounts out of court to save legal costs hasn't helped.

My second point I can't prove but I offer the following

The number of pay outs by car insurers for personal injury has increased

The insurers therefore charge us higher premiums, to cover the higher cotsts (they don't take it out of their account do they?)

The size of the insurance market is now bigger. I assume when I pay a premium my money is used in 3 main ways

1. Admin

2. Used to pay out for claims. Not sure why it would be invested. I'm sure that most months the cash in and pay outs are similar. Its not like flood insurance that fluctuates wildly with years of income an nopay outs followed bu huge payouts all in one go

3. Profit

I assume the profit bit, like any retail product, is a % of the total spend

Therefore bigger premiums means more profit

Their is to a certain extent no market. All drivers need insurance

If industry was really trying to minimize pay out they would need the government to intervene

Finally last week Tesco announced a drop in like for like sales. They lowered their prices therefore reducing their income. The insurance case is the opposite

Insurance companies may save money on a claim by settling out of court. Of course settling a fair claim out of court makes total sense. But each individual settlement could increase over all costs as it encourages more claims. Its like letting your kids stay up late for an easy life. It makes it harder in the future

Sorry paul I'm making a poor point badly

You are right each insurance company minimizes costs (pay outs) so it can offer lower premiums and or make more money

But I'm suspicious because treating the industry as whole they all benefit from higher payouts as they have greater turn over.