To think this claim is ridiculous!

[CatchingBabies]

Last year I was involved in a minor car accident. Misjudged my braking distance and bumped into the car in front of me as they rolled back at the same time. They were exiting a roundabout on a hill. Tiny tiny bump at less than 5mph and no damage to either car. We stopped, exchanged apologies and went on our way.

Now 10 months later I'm told the other driver has submitted a claim against me. They claim that because of the accident they are suffering anxiety, depression, intrusive thoughts and flashbacks. I have been asked to submit a defence.

It's a bloody joke! A tiny tiny bump that caused NO damage to either car, NO injuries to either driver and I'm supposed to believe that 10 months later it's having such a major effect on her mental health, really?

It seems more likely that she's seen one of these no win no fee lawyers and thought she may as well chance it. How do I possibly defend this? Does she have a claim?

We have a haulage company. One of our drivers witnessed a motorbike taking the wing mirror off a car in stationary traffic. He stopped and spoke to the car driver offering his details to act as a witness.

The driver is now saying that he was the one to hit her wing mirror

This has been going backwards and forwards for a couple of years now.

Trust nae fucker.

The claim will fail. You can't claim for a psychological injury for this kind of incident unless there is also a physical injury.

I'm afraid that's not correct - there is no rule in law of that nature, and it is entirely possible for someone to receive psychological injuries without being physically injured at all.

But I agree it's highly unlikely this particular claim will go anywhere, simply because the accident was so minor, and the claimant hasn't been bright enough to cover her tracks on social media. I suspect she thinks the insurance company will pay out to avoid legal fees, but I believe insurers are being tougher about that these days.

Paulapansdown, I agree with Papafran. It's a fundamental rule that if a motorcyclist chooses to drive past stationary traffic he does so slowly and carefully. If that one was going so fast that he couldn't see the pedestrian or react in time to your husband's horn, and was in a collision causing severe injuries to both parties, it certainly sounds as if he was more than 50% responsible. But in any event it wasn't for your husband to judge.

Thanks everyone. I've emailed a statement to my insurer today explaining what happened and have attached the Facebook photos of the other driver. I'll leave them to deal with it and hopefully they will refute it.