denny: (Biker)
[personal profile] denny
Just got a letter from my lawyer with a load of stuff that the other party intends to use as evidence (declared documents, or something). Amongst other things this includes the other guy's statement (laughable, I only hope he's as unbelievable in court as he is on paper), and the witness statement ("I didn't see the crash, but the car was heavily damaged and so I suggest the bike was going very fast". Yes mate, 30mph is very fucking fast to hit an essentially immovable object - I certainly wouldn't want to repeat the experience).

It also includes my blog from Advogato, a site I haven't been on since 2005 - I assume they're planning to use some stuff I wrote there about getting a written warning at work (pre-accident job) against the 'loss of earnings' part of my claim, but we'll see. Finally, they've included my CV, and a copy of a random e-petition that I signed on the PM's website. I can't see the relevance of the former, but this is dwarfed by the lack of relevance of the latter. I strongly suspect they just googled my name and printed off everything that didn't have the word 'perl' on the page :)

Anyway, have emailed my lawyer with my thoughts on the pile of stuff. Not much to be done about any of it at this stage, I'm pretty sure it's going to end up in court and then I just hope that I can keep my shit together and sound coherent while the other guy will hopefully sound at least as much like he's making up random nonsense as he does in his written statements:

"I blame the motorcyclist as the bike was travelling too fast and could not stop in time to pass me."

So I should have stopped and passed him? Right then. At least I'll know for next time, eh?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 07:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaz-pixie.livejournal.com
I strongly doubt the witness statement will be allowed in unless it's by an expert - otherwise it's just laughable - all they'd be able to say is "the car was heavily damaged" without offering any kind of opinion as to why unless they're some kind of expert who has analysed the crash in sufficient depth to give a grounded opinion (doubtful). Your solicitor/barrister will be able to challenge and strike out any kind of evidence that is irrelevent. Your CV is the only thing in that list that I'd be even vaguely worried about. Other than the time that you were injured have you had any gaps on it? If you have I'd be thinking seriously about explaining those away if you need to, just so that you don't get screwed out of anything - although presumably the solicitor has already given you this advice.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] swiftangel.livejournal.com
Any Witness Statement is allowed as evidence, but the judge is under no obligation to give weight to such statements. Any evidence produced by the other side that is not directly relevant to the accident could actually be seen as a mark against them as an petty personal attack. A written warning does not in any way effect your earnings, and would not have any bearing on the loss of earnings claim. The fact is that if you're employed when the accident happens then you have a claim for loss of earnings... whether or not you've recently had disciplinary issues in that job.

Personal injury cases are frightfully subjective and pretty arbitrary, all things considered. If you're lucky, you'll get one of the level headed, claimant-friendly judges.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-28 10:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaz-pixie.livejournal.com
I thought the evidence had to be a) relevant and b) have a higher provative value than prejudicial effect even in civil cases. Strange if not.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-29 08:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robert-jones.livejournal.com
Strictly speaking that's true, but it's very rare for there to be disputes about the admissibility of civil evidence other than in relation to privileged documents, on the basis that (a) the judge will ignore the evidence if it's irrelevant and (b) the judge will be able to set aside any prejudicial impact. In any case the judge would have to see the evidence to decide whether to admit it, by which time it's a bit late. (Although in extreme cases the judge will recuse himself and the trial will have to start again.)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-28 08:46 am (UTC)
ext_287016: (Default)
From: [identity profile] pooloftrees.livejournal.com
I'm sure your solicitor will advise you appropriately, but I'd have thought that his statement would be able to be judged as just an opinion in the court unless, as mentioned above, he happens to be an expert on car damage.

As I'm sure you know, modern cars are designed to crumple for safety reasons, so any damage seen could be believed to be the result of a more serious accident (plus your bike wasn't exactly light IIRC). Maybe a written expert report on the pictures would completely negate this stupid witness's statement.

On the other note, as someone else has mentioned, you were in employment at the time of the accident and so, written warning or not, it prevented you from attending your place of employment. Even if you'd been unemployed, it would have prevented you seeking/gaining employment and carrying out any work.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-28 10:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaz-pixie.livejournal.com
I know traditionally unqualified opinions have a higher prejudicial effect than probative value which is why (certainly when juries are the deciders of fact) they're not admissable, but then I've only really looked at it in any depth in criminal cases - perhaps rules are different with a lone judge.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 07:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cokephreak.livejournal.com
It could be far worse:

He could be saying he saw you speeding and sound like he actually had good reason to think it.

Same for the web pages - They could have found things that indicate that you regularly break the speed limits instead of seeminly random ones that happen to have your name on them.
I'd take the randomness and nonsenseness of it as a Good Sign

What was the petition they pulled from the gov. website? I'm sure you've put your name to more than one of them so what makes this one special?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 07:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com
"Scrap vehicle excise duty and make the money up by raising fuel tax"

I have no idea why that one :)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] djlongfella.livejournal.com
Dude, crack on, it's all bollox. I had a similar situation with my claim ( thankfully my injuries were less than yours ) it all went the full nine yards untill the day before court when his insurance company trippled their offer, I accepted, job done. Its all a game. Don't get too worked up or phased, they are playing these games cos they know they are shafted.
If they knew they could offer you a few hundred quid to " go away " then they would without a second thought, but they knw they are gonna have to pay so they are playing " damage limitation " in the meant time,

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-28 10:04 am (UTC)
ext_287016: (Default)
From: [identity profile] pooloftrees.livejournal.com
I'm guessing that they are going to imply somehow that by supporting the scrapping of one vehicle related law, you may be against or break other vehicle related laws. I doubt that would look like anything other than mud-slinging though...

BTW - you might want to make all these posts relating to this friends only, so that the defence doesn't have more of an idea on your plan of attack or try to make more ammunition...

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-27 07:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] easternpromise.livejournal.com
*sigh* I do hope this gets sorted out soon... It's awful that someone can do this to you, affect your life so much and so detrimentally, and try and worm their way out of it. :(

(no subject)

Date: 2007-04-28 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] original-hell.livejournal.com
I hadn't realised that was still going on. Ouch. Still, even I could see their argument is rubbish.
x

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 2930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags