[Closed] Why can't some folk take responsibility for their own actions....

You are all suggesting that she did this on purpose, it was patently an accident. Insurance is for accidents.

Isn’t it misadventure?

An accident implies no liability on the part of the person involved. In this case if she had slipped/tripped over an uneven paving flag around the pool, fallen in and the injury then occurred. She appears to have made the decision to jump in, even though her judgement was impaired due to alcohol.

That's why the police no longer use RTA as a legal term, its a traffic collision as there is implied responsibility.

convert - Member

I'm not suggesting fraud.

Have a quick read back over what you have written?

p.s. don't bother asking me to find it for you, you are a big boy. I've got stuff to do.

You're not helping yourself here, you've interpreted something toys has said as suggesting fraud, stop being a dick and say where.

"Well what we do now is exchange details and you make a claim on my insurance, it will be fine it was my fault."
That is not fraud it's honesty.

its only honesty if you abmit liability because you were liable in the first place!

Insurance is for accidents.

It is fraud having suffered an own fault accident to try and hold some one else responsible when you know they are not.Fraud in this area is common and expensive.

You yourself feel the insurance should pay "regardless of who was to blame," So if i burgle your house and fall down the stairs i get to sue you for my injures?

even if she had insurance i dont think she would have been covered if she was under the unfluence.

The judge said she accepted Ms Grimes's evidence that she was not drunk.

ferrit - Isn’t it misadventure?

Yeah possibly. In my eyes that still doesn't warrant scorn being poured over her in her attempt to make her life better.

davidrussell -its only honesty if you abmit liability because you were liable in the first place!

Yes but what about if you are no expert in the law and cannot make a judgement if it is your liability or not. So you could say
"perhaps legally we might have been at fault, maybe you should make a claim and let the experts decide."

crankboy - It is fraud having suffered an own fault accident to try and hold some one else responsible when you know they are not.Fraud in this area is common and expensive.

See my response above.

You yourself feel the insurance should pay "regardless of who was to blame," So if i burgle your house and fall down the stairs i get to sue you for my injures?

No I don't that is your misunderstanding, what I think is that people should not be vilified for testing the law, and if the law did find in her favour (as long as it was only the insurance companies loss) then it wouldn't have been a really awful thing in such a tragic case.

interesting point that, if the judge accepted she wasn't drunk does that mean she hadn't been drinking, or merely that she wasn't drunk. I'm sure an insurance company would contest it if there was any alcohol involved.

davidrussell - Member
interesting point that, if the judge accepted she wasn't drunk does that mean she hadn't been drinking, or merely that she wasn't drunk. I'm sure an insurance company would contest it if there was any alcohol involved.

Whilst I don't doubt it, this is irrelevant in my dreamworld. As it is still a tragic episode, she is still paralysed and it still would be good if she had her life made easier, pissed or not..

Yes but what about if you are no expert in the law and cannot make a judgement if it is your liability or not. So you could say
"perhaps legally we might have been at fault, maybe you should make a claim and let the experts decide."

I have always been led to believe that you never admit liability at the scene (from an RTA perspective at least)so this would be no different.

I have always been led to believe that you never admit liability at the scene (from an RTA perspective at least)so this would be no different.

I cannot accept that it is fraud to admit liability, or admit that you do not know who is liable, no matter what the circumstance. The advice you have been given is purely pragmatic to aid your own defence.

and it still would be good if she had her life made easier, pissed or no

What about drink drivers? Beds battering **** out of themselves on a Friday night?

I was commenting specifically on this case, as I thought convert was wrong and somewhat distasteful to comment on her legal actions.

I agree it was worth a try, but ultimately the right Outcome IMO

Can I just say I agree with toys 19

I cannot accept that it is fraud to admit liability, or admit that you do not know who is liable, no matter what the circumstance.

I'm not saying that admitting liability is fraud!

My point was straigtforward. You should not accept liability, irrespective of whether you think you are liable or not. Encouraging someone to make a claim isn't fraud either, but i would very much doubt that anyone would recommend doing that, per your scenario above.

You should not accept liability

davidrussell - apologies, I you were saying that I was suggesting insurance fraud.

j_me - Member

You should not accept liability
bollocks, if you think you're liable admit it.

...and watch your incurer decline to cover you due to that breach of your policy.

Show me?

yeah, thats what i thought ^. You can't admit liability on behalf of your insurer.

@toys - no worries

paragraph 9 on that page - commercial insurance but i think it serves to prove the point.

https://www.larkinsurance.co.uk/commercial-claims

also slightly more relevant (in the sense that it is PL insurance)

2nd last para page 4

...and watch your incurer decline to cover you due to that breach of your policy.

[conjecture]Hence a possible change in the Dads attitude from maybe we should help this girls, to blimey the insurance is going to pull the rug out unless we are all on the same team..[/conjecture]

Fair cop. I'm not admitting liability for any erroneous posts though

edit - actually scrap that. There's not enough time in the day to argue on the internet.

@pjt - its all about time management, if you ignore important things you can have all day to argue. 🙂

who was it who raised the circle of concern/circle of influence?

Crikey, haven't read all the posts but as a "responsible adult" with responsibilities both business and family, I have taken out insurance to make sure that if any misfortune befalls me then I will be ably taken care of, as will my dependants and employees. Given that I enjoy sports like cycling I think its only prudent. Hence, I don't have as much sympathy for those that cartwheel themselves down a mountain, then claim recompense for pain / suffering et all from whoever is nearby.

What does annoy me though, is that as the owner of a small business I am forced to carry a minimum of 10 million public liability insurance, no doubt for such haphazard people as the claimant in the original case.

So, in answer to the original thread, individuals should take responsibility to provide for themselves, not me !

I do like the NewZealand way of doing things, were a government body "The Accident Compensation Corporation" takes care of all accidental injuries, there is no (well very very little at least) sue them mentality.

Theres basically a shopping list of injuries and subsequent payouts. Only downside is when the economy takes a downturn ... theres always a spike in "Damn shot myself in the foot" incidents.

[url= http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2097436_paralysed_woman_loses_pool_damages_claim ]a bit more detail[/url]

Rather debunks the covertly mutually consensual insurance claim angle...

Earlier, the judge was told Miss Grimes £6m damages claim was far in excess of Mr Hawkins' insurance cover and, had she won the case, he would have faced bankruptcy.

Toys - still happy with your "good on her" angle if she had won the full £6M?

Does not sound like the defendant's witnesses covered themselves in glory though.

Toys - still happy with your "good on her" angle if she had won the full £6M?

You like putting words in my mouth. I never said "good on her". But yes I think going over his insurance max is not nice.

They would never have got or expected £6M, the amount sued for is always well overstated in these situations.

Ah so she sued for more so that she would get his insurance max.

You like putting words in my mouth. I never said "good on her".

You're are right, not "good on her" verbatum but

If she had won and got 6 million and lived the life of riley ..... I would have had a little cheer

Sorry, insurance claim angle does not wash for me (obviously conjecture, but so is your position) - why would the owner's daughter make claims about her not beig invited/sanciton her to go swimming only to get found out in court (she lent her swimming kit) unless she was trying to save her father?

Ahh yes but you have conveniently forgotten that I qualified it several times with his insurance maximum, and I stand by it.

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread but I did. I may or may not have been drinking.

Who do I sue for my facepalm injuries? Either of you have STW 3rd-party liability insurance?

So just to claify, it was "distastful" for me to comment on her legal actions provided it was effectively against "the machine" AKA an insurance company; but it would be "not nice" for her to make the same legal action if it was directed financially at another single person?

I hope you havn't been all "Daily Mail" and jumped to a conclusion based on a hunch and an assumption - then you'd be as bad as me!

yes schnullelieber you are ultra funny. well done.

And convert, no it was still distasteful of you.

And it was it not distastful of you to say going over his limit was "not nice"? After all she's got to look after number one, unless you have been in her position how do you know what you might do?

I'd be having a long hard look at yourself. 😉

That'll do on this, I'm even boring myself now and I've got a frame to weld.

because there is a difference between needing help and being selfish. But as Al said, she probs only asked for more to ensure she got his insurance max.
She has a right to test the law, she possibly might have asked for too much, other than that everything I said still stands, especially the bit about your actions earlier being distasteful.

If the insurers pay out, insurance goes up and while many of us on here can probably afford to pay more, there are plenty of people in the country that can't.

If the insurers pay out, insurance goes up and while many of us on here can probably afford to pay more, there are plenty of people in the country that can't.

CZ +1

possibly the most futile pathetic argument I have seen on the internet for a while.

[b]convert[/b] no point in arguing here - you ain't going to change his mind - and he doesn't even seem to understand way insurance works and how we all get screwed if such claims go through.