Posts Tagged ‘injuries’
Stating that the amendment not only radically reduced the benefits that RAF paid to road traffic accident victims, the Law Society of South Africa – LSSA has added that it also deprived them of their right to claim for compensation.
“If the application for direct access is granted, the appeal will be heard then and there,” said Jacqui Sohn, chairwoman of the LSSA’s road accident fund committee.
Each month, about 20,000 people become the victim of a road traffic accident.
The Road Accident Fund Act of 1996 came into effect in August 2008 having been changed by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act of 2005.
Before the amendment came into effect, motorists and public carriers were liable for the full compensation of their passengers for the injuries sustained and subsequent damages.
It is for this reason that many motorists and public carriers carried readily obtainable and affordable insurance, which provided coverage for such risk.
Now, says Sohn, they have been completely absolved from any financial liability to the victim in terms of the Amendment Act.
Ten other applicants have joined the LSSA in its petition to the Constitutional Court.
“Victims of other recklessness such as hospital negligence, train accidents, airplane crashes… can all claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered by them from the person at fault.
“Victims of road accidents can no longer do so, even if the reckless wrongdoer is the wealthy driver of a luxury car or a profitable bus company,” Sohn added.
A lorry driver who drove into a sozzled reveller is having a personal injury claim brought against him on the grounds that the trucker should have realised that he was drunk. South Croydon reveller Carl Heaven has filed a claim for an “unlimited” amount of money in damages from Brian Williams and Containerlift Services after suffering multiple broken bones. This was after he was hit by the back of the 44 tonne lorry being driven by Mr. Heaven.
Mr. Williams, a plumber is claiming that he was hindered from returning to work for over seven months as a result of the pain from his injuries. Mr. Heaven’s team of lawyers argue that Mr. Williams should have realised “given the time of night and their appearance”, the plumber and his friend “were likely to be drunk and likely to behave unpredictably”.
Mr. Heaven’s solicitors contend that he should have “stopped completely or reduced his speed to a point where he was almost stationary”, so he could observe the pair of revellers using his wing mirrors. The legal team also added that the trucker should have realised the probability that his rear wheels could have collided with Mr Heaven.
At the time of the accident, Mr. Heaven, a 32-year-old plumber and his friend were both drunk on the High Street in Abingdon, Oxon at about 2.45am on June 20, 2007.
An employee at the Essex-based Containerlift Services, Mr. Williams was at the time of the accident taking a left turn from Bridge Street into the High Street. According to the police statement, this is when he says he saw the revellers “larking around” in the middle of the road.
After “waving” at Mr. Williams, a resident of the Isle of Wight, the revellers moved on to the kerb on the left side of the road, as the trucker drove past them. Mr. Heaven then claims that the back wheels of the lorry caught him and dragged him “a significant distance” along the road, leaving him with injuries including a broken left arm in three places, a broken right arm and right leg.
Having filed his personal injury claim on June 18 this year, Mr. Heaven could win damages worth thousands of pounds.
A date for the case to be heard has not yet been set.
Imagine this; first thing in the morning when you’re on your way to work, some idiot driver ploughs into the rear of your car. So, you exchange details and decide to call your insurance company later that day.
You go home to sort through the problems the accident has caused, and before you manage to make the call to your insurer, someone is at the door? This person represents the other drivers insurance company and he carries a check made out to you, to compensate you for your injuries!!
Now, with startling regularity, we hear about this kind of thing happening after a road traffic accident has occurred. It’s certainly a very quick response and perhaps seems too good to be true. Well it is! In fact the consequences of accepting an on the spot offer could be serious indeed.
There has to be something dubious about being able to offer a person compensation for injuries prior to them having taken legal advice or establishing the extent of the injuries with a medical professional. Indeed in some cases, an offer of compensation has been made before there’s even time for the crash debris to be cleared from the road.
Under the guise of a ‘pro-active service’, these quick fix offers come down to a money saving exercise. A person accepting this kind of quick compensation will be asked to sign a document to say that the one off payment settles claims relating to the incident in full. This means whatever kind of accident aftermath unfolds, no further claims can be made.
Any professional with knowledge of personal injury will explain that the seriousness of a person’s injuries following an accident cannot be determined for some time after the accident happens, certainly hours, and sometimes days. In fact in cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or other psychological problems, the symptoms often do not manifest for some considerable time after the accident.
It’s certainly true that you may not receive as much money in compensation by accepting a quick fix payment but more importantly, you run the risk of missing out on the required treatment you might need in order to recover.
It is recommended that anyone involved in a road traffic accident should seek legal advice before settling a personal injury claim. A specialist personal injury lawyer will ensure that the claimant is sufficiently compensated for their injury and any subsequent loss.
As well as offering a no win, no fee service, good personal injury solicitors will make sure independent medical advice is sought, assess the extent of the claim, assess whether any treatment is needed and that all subsequent losses are recovered.
Unfortunately, some cases have been reported where people who accepted the same day compensation have suffered symptoms which continued for months or years after the accident occurred. In these cases, the claimants will have received less compensation than they were entitled to.
In an effort to regulate insurance companies in this area, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers asked its members for evidence of these offers of early settlement of claims from insurers so that the former Financial Services Authority can be made properly aware of this activity.
Until new regulations are brought in, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have unveiled a voluntary code of practice aimed at the insurance companies operating this practice.
This new ABI code states that the insurer must make clear to the claimant their right to seek independent legal advice, that insurers should not go to the claimants home but make contact by telephone, email, text message or letter.