The suing will probably be a non starter, especially if the driver isn't charged or convicted.
With every respect, this is nonsense. OP was hit when half way over a pedestrian crossing. That's very clear evidence on its own that the driver was negligent, whether he was speeding or not. I would think there's an excellent charge of the driver being charged, but that isn't an essential requirement for a negligence claim.
Yes, clearly you should claim, but there's no urgency about it - you've got three years to do so. It's not true that it will take years for a claim to go through: the only delaying factor would possibly be waiting to check in case there are any long term injuries.
You aren't limited to financial loss. You are entitled to claim an element of damages for shock and injury to yourself and your child - obviously your DC's damages will go to him and will probably be held on trust for him.
Cakeninjas post is a classic example of the double standards that seem to operate on MN whenever people mention the possibility of claiming compensation for negligence. On the one hand it's an example of the so-called compensation culture; yet when someone is seriously injured, it's absolutely fine to claim compensation. I wish someone could explain precisely where the line has to be drawn - I've asked a number of times, no-one appears to be able to answer
Fortunately in law there is no such line, because it would be wholly impracticable. There's a fundamental principle which has been in place at least since the 1940s that people are liable for the foreseeable consequences of their negligence, and that includes both compensation for defined financial loss and damages for pain, suffering and inconvenience. T