DS hit by car - can I claim compensation?

[Gremlin120808]

Hi wise ones.
My 6yr DS was crossing the road holding STBXH's hand. It was at a pedestrian crossing, the road is narrowed and the pavement has those bobbly things underfoot, but it's not a zebra crossing. They looked both ways (left,right,left...wrong way around), and stepped out. The wing mirror of the car hit DS's face. Nothing broken but a bloody nose, black eye and face and big swelling.
Police have dealt with the driver etc (who stopped and was very shaken), but can I claim compensation?? And how do I go about it??
I'm just glad he's alive and don't want to seem like I'm "grabbing", but is this a legitimate claim scenario???
I've never claimed for anything before so don't know what I'm doing!!!!

Why will they almost certainly pay out due to his age? If he's of an age where it's likely he'll have no road sense he shouldn't actually be out alone?
The negligence certainly wasn't yours

Op, it is worth seeing a solicitor - your son may be entitled to some compensation for the pain and suffering caused by his injury if the driver is at fault. This may be dealt with by the police, they should let you know if they intend to prosecute him for careless driving which would prove liability, otherwise liability will be assessed by the court.

It is quite possible that even if liability is proven, any damages are reduced because if your xh's contribuyory negligence - I.e the driver was st fault, but the accident would not have been so bad if your x hadn't also been negligent. This reduction can be very substantial.

The first step is to get copies of all your son's medical records and see a solicitor. It may prove not to be worth pursuing but there is no harm in asking the question - the law is as it is precisely so that people who are injured through other's carelessness are able to be compensated.

You can get damages for PSLA (pain, suffering and loss of amenity), but in the case of your DS, this is not likely to be a large amount where there is just superficial bruising, no scarring, no broken bones and no further treatment likely to be needed. It's very different for example if a child breaks a bone, because it means that there is a very high risk of arthritis later in life (for some broke bones, arthritis is almost inevitable). Therefore, it is unlikely that you would get a large amount (on his behalf). I would say under £1,000.

You don't mention any other incidental costs but these would be things like medical treatment, painkillers, physio, various therapies, time that parents have had to take off work etc. When you hear about multi-million pound settlements in the news, only a tiny fraction of that payment will be for PSLA- the rest will be for past and future losses. Unless you can quantify your losses, it will be difficult to succeed.

Also, there is the question of liability. If your STBX stepped out in front of a car that he presumably saw coming, I would guess that he will at least be held to have contributed to the accident. That would normally reduce any compensation by a percentage. There is also a chance that if there is no evidence of speeding, that your STBX will be held to be entirely to blame and the entire claim will fail (although in low value claims, the insurance company will often agree an out of court settlement).

The only way you can find out whether you have a case or not is to contact a personal injury solicitor who will take full details from you. It is likely to take some time to even get an idea of whether you have any prospects of success. The solicitor will need to know details of injuries plus all notes and records that the police made at the scene and evidence from the witnesses. It is only after all that evidence is available and has been analysed that you can get an idea of how strong the case is.

I'd sue your STBEXH if I were you. Keep it in the family. That way you aren't blighting some poor driver who is having to cope with your Ex and DS stepping out into the road.

AccidentGuilt that is terrible. I obviously sympathise with the poor child who was hit, but why should you have to take the financial (and the moral) hit? Personal Injury law is a lot about the state avoiding its responsibilities to citizens and palming them off on other private citizens. Incidentally, the country where the claim culture is the biggest, also has terrible social provision and everything is privatised (the USA).

The child was 10 in my case he was on his own. I have told my insurance company that I want them fight it all the way. I am prepared to go to court. They have said a judge will usually side with a child. I have a child the same age and they are never out on their own.

So you end up paying for the parents negligence and the boy's stupidity. So unfair Accident

well Accident i have everything crossed for you, so unfair

Thanks. They have 3 years from his 18th birthday to settle the claim apparently. They need to work out he he will be affected long term. It is now a year on and nothing has happened as far as I can see from my insurance company.

They have said a judge will usually side with a child

Not necessarily. Basically, the boy's legal team needs to prove on a balance of probabilities that your driving fell below the reasonable standard- ie that you were negligent. If there is absolutely no evidence that you were negligent then the court cannot really find that you were. However, I suspect that many judges have in the back of their minds that if this kid doesn't get compensation, then nobody else will pick up the tab for his medical treatment and on that basis be sympathetic towards him. However, if you can gather good evidence from witnesses, the police, photos of the scene, a strong witness statement from you, then I would hope that the insurance company would at least consider denying liability.

I think many people think that because drivers are all insured that there aren't many consequences for the defendant in these cases. But the cost of increased premiums is huge and there is also the stigma of being legally blamed for something that you couldn't have prevented.

accident. I hope,you stand firm and don't let the insurance company browbeat you into agreeing to a payout/admitting liability. I would hope a judge would find in your favour.

Bit tricky to get 'evidence' on an Internet forum- were you thinking of something that could be admissible in court?

So that's why you don't start accusing people of lying. In this case OP said in her first post that the police had dealt with the driver, so that in itself indicates that the accident happened some time ago as that process isn't disposed of within a couple of hours.

I didn't Judy you seem to struggle with what I have said. You don't know either way but seem to have appointed yourself as resident expert.

CPS takes a bit longer than two weeks, I am not sure what she means by being 'dealt' with by the police.

FFS, Tortoise, no, I haven't appointed myself expert. I really don't know why you're so aggressive. Like everyone else posting on this thread, I've expressed my views which, insofar as they relate to facts about the legal position, are supported by other people on here who know about that. If you think I'm wrong in that respect, feel free to point out where and why. Otherwise, insofar as I'm responding to what you have posted, I'm assuming you mean what you have written on here; if you don't, that's absolutely fine with me.

Um, you are the aggressive one .
Read back your first post to me 'read the thread FFS'

Someone else called you aggressive too. You seem fixated on my comment tbh.

You haven't even managed to quote me accurately now, Tortoise, and no-one else has called me aggressive. You are the one who charmingly and inaccurately accused me of being or pretending to be a "second rate compo lawyer": is that not by any chance just the tiniest bit aggressive? And since when was replying to you "fixating" on any comment? This is a discussion, it's not a crime to disagree with what you say or to point out facts that tend not to support it.

I think that you are aggressive, so does another poster. Sorry for misquoting you- you are very rude. Feel free to have the last comment as its too nice a day to engage with you any further

Judy is entirely correct btw.

MN is weird on people claiming compensation, it's bizarre. If someone isn't legally entitled to it as their claim has no basis, then they won't get it.

Today 16:20 alltouchedout

I think some of you pro claim posters are having a little difficulty in understanding that when people give their opinion on what should happen, they are not stating that this is the legal position. They are sharing their perspective and hoping to counterbalance the extremely pro claim message that seems to dominate these days.
Or maybe some of you are just aggressively rude and combative. Hmm

This ^^