Compensation for daughter (hit by car) but who from?

[MotherOfDragons27]

Hi everyone, I'd appreciate some advice or knowledge please.

Almost two years ago (sept 2019) my eldest daughter started secondary school. In her 2nd week she was leaving school and was hit by a car as she was crossing the road. The driver was a 17 year old boy from her school who had just passed his test. When it happened another mum got out of her car and told the driver to move his car for some unknown reason, so he did. This means the police were unable to gain any evidence from the scene and as there was no proof of wrong doing there were no further charges against the boy and the case was dropped.

My daughter suffered two breaks to her pelvis and obviously scrapes and bruising. She was in hospital for 10 days and had to use crutches for 6 weeks until her pelvis was healed. I was with her the whole time and had to be signed off work with stress to cover myself work wise.

I have been thinking about trying to claim for some sort of compensation for my daughter but I'm unsure if it's possible? Where would I claim, who would I be claiming from and what are the chances of her receiving anything?

Does anyone have any similar experience where someone was injured in a road traffic accident but no fault was established? We have the letter from the police and the incident number etc so there is record of it. I also have her discharge letter from the hospital.

If anyone can shed any light on this for me I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

@Sometimesfraught82

There needs to be an”at fault” party

Of course. But it doesn't always mean a conviction? I claimed and got medically assessed and got a cheque. The driver at fault but not convicted

When I first got together with my DH he crashed his car with me as the passenger and I broke my spine. I used no win no fee solicitors to claim from his insurance company. It took a couple of years but was not too much hassle.

What on earth leads people to just make up some law on these threads? It’s so weirdly mean spirited to try to discourage the OP to claim based on a Puritan hunch that the daughter should just live with it.

I’m a lawyer in a completely different field (IP) and see utter bollocks written on here about copyright every day but generally the misinformation doesn’t have any real human cost so it’s annoying but not damaging.

I can only assume the “Insurance here” poster is lying about their job.

@Sometimesfraught82

Insurance here. You don’t have any claim UNLESS the bot was convicted of driving without due care and diligence

That's absolute rubbish....former PI lawyer here! Your daughter has 3 years from the date on which she turns 18 to bring a claim as she was a child at the time of the accident but I would suggest you start a claim sooner rather than later. If you or her father are trade union members you can bring a claim using the Union legal services, most high street solicitors offer PI services on a conditional fee basis "no win no fee". Your daughter will need an adult to act on her behalf and any damages awarded will be held in trust until she is 18.

So your daughter saw the car and thought she had time to cross but obviously didn't. Liability is going to be split at least then.

@WeAllHaveWings

Yes she's physically healed but it could have an effect on her in the future for example if she gives birth to children or develops arthritis.

Even if you do manage to prove fault, they won't compensate for possibility/maybe in the future.

Utter bollocks, a large part of my DDs claim was based on possible future problems.

Agree @CarlottaValdez. It’s particularly galling to see the absolute shite being spouted here given OP actually posted in Legal Matters, not AIBU to ask any idiot who imagines their opinion and the law are the same thing to give me their tuppence worth.

@MotherOfDragons27 You should definitely see a personal injury solicitor to discuss the case. This is not going to be a ‘he said/she said’ matter just because the police didn’t prosecute. They will get a copy of the police report which should have the witness statements, sketch of the accident scene etc so you really shouldn’t have any difficulty establishing that the incident happened, the vehicle & driver involved and the insurer. Further investigation eg an engineer might be required but the solicitor will discuss these things with you.

I work in PI insurance claims (so on the defence side) and although nobody could say this is cut and dried just based on the information here, I can tell you that cases involving child pedestrians can be difficult to defend. From an insurers POV there are some immediate and obvious concerns here that an experienced claims handler would bear in mind when considering whether to actually take this case to a full hearing. Obviously they will investigate and won’t necessarily concede liability but despite the view that Insurance companies fight everything they’re not actually in the habit of incurring unnecessary legal costs in cases where they know that they are very much on risk.

From what you say it sounds to me like it was her fault she saw the car walked out into the road and was hit by it.

Unless he was going very fast, which the police would have followed up at the time, how was that anything other than her fault?

From what you say it sounds to me like it was her fault she saw the car walked out into the road and was hit by it.

Please don't listen to this kind of nonsense and speak to an actual lawyer.

Pedestrian RTAs generally and particularly when they involve children almost always settle because car drivers are expected to "expect the unexpected" and anticipate that people, especially children, can move in an unexpected way. Even if she had misjudged and walked out when he was closer than she thought it may very well be that there would be some contributory negligence found against her (a percentage of blame) rather than her not getting anything at all.

You have absolutely nothing to lose by speaking to an actual lawyer who will be able to talk you through options.

Former serious PI claims hander here and this post has nailed it. What I would add is is that in all probability your daughter would be awarded at least 50% of damages even if she stepped out into the path of the vehicle, providing she was visible to the driver at the time. You owe it to your daughter to claim although she can bring her own action when she is 18.

@WeAllHaveWings

Yes she's physically healed but it could have an effect on her in the future for example if she gives birth to children or develops arthritis.

Even if you do manage to prove fault, they won't compensate for possibility/maybe in the future.

Nonsense. An appropriate specialist will be able to advise on what the future prognosis is, and that can and will be built into any damages claim.

I wish people who blatantly know nothing about how the law works wouldn't try to advise.

@helpfulperson

So your daughter saw the car and thought she had time to cross but obviously didn't. Liability is going to be split at least then.

Where do you get that from? A driver approaching a school crossing has a duty to take extra care. It sounds like this one wasn't adequately in control of the car; to do that much damage, he doesn't appear even to have been slowing down, let alone trying to avoid her.

Unless he was going very fast, which the police would have followed up at the time, how was that anything other than her fault?

Why do people persist in posting this kind of rubbish?

If a car hits a pedestrian the driver of the car will almost always be liable for the pedestrian's injuries. If the pedestrian has not taken proper care the compensation will be reduced, but it is very unusual for the car driver not to be held at fault.

@rwalker

From what you say it sounds to me like it was her fault she saw the car walked out into the road and was hit by it.

I do hope you're not a driver. Ever heard of keeping your eyes and ears open and taking care when approaching a school crossing?

The armchair lawyers who clearly don't actually know the law need to give it a rest and leave it to those of us who actually do know what we're talking about!

As a pp said, this isn't AIBU.

Honestly the misinformation spouted as fact on this thread 🤦‍♀️

Yet another thread where the OP is asking for legal advice and gets a pile on of "advice" from people who clearly don't know the law.

The OP's daughter can claim compensation from the driver. The fact he wasn't prosecuted is irrelevant.

The driver is almost certain to be held at fault for the accident, although the OP's daughter may be found to have contributed to it, which will reduce compensation. The police often get this wrong, telling drivers they were not to blame for an accident in situations where the courts would disagree.

Personal injury compensation is not just for financial loss. It probably won't be a huge amount, but the OP needs to consult a lawyer to find out.

@WeAllHaveWings

Yes she's physically healed but it could have an effect on her in the future for example if she gives birth to children or develops arthritis.

Even if you do manage to prove fault, they won't compensate for possibility/maybe in the future.

More bollocks. Personal injury claims often include provision for future losses which flow from the original injury.

I truly don’t think I’ve ever seen so much rubbish posted on a thread before as on this one. Why do people insist on believing that their vague notions about how things work are the law? The absolute confidence with which people assert ‘facts’ which are categorically wrong and for which they have no basis is astounding.

There is a reason people spend years studying and training to become lawyers. If you haven’t done that training may I respectfully suggest you steer clear of the legal advice board, and stop spouting ignorant rubbish to people needing help.

OP - I am a lawyer, and I think you have very credible prospects of success here. I also think you owe it to your daughter to see if a claim can be made out. As you say, it’s money she may need in the future if there are long term consequences from her injuries.

Many firms do claims like this on a no win no fee basis, if the cost is a concern.

I am reminded of a very early tort class at law school some decades ago where the lecturer presented a scenario of a driver on a country road hitting a jogger and asked how fault would be allocated.

People got very involved in the details of the quality of the light, the position of the jogger on the road and the guidance of the Highway Code, but I, as a very young and self-righteous student said that it was clearly the driver’s fault simply on the grounds that he’d been driving a two tonne death machine. Somewhat to my surprise the lecturer said that I was basically correct in practice, because it takes a remarkable set of circumstances to prevent a motorist from being found liable for injury to a pedestrian.

Does legal aid still exist and would this cover the legal fees if the claim was made by the OP's daughter?

Yes, legal aid still exists but is not usually available for personal injury cases.

@Zzelda
I do hope you're not a driver. Ever heard of keeping your eyes and ears open and taking care when approaching a school crossing?

Isn't that as useful as saying make sure that no cars coming when you step into the rd.

There's a lot of scarily incorrect advice on this thread.

OP I'm a lawyer. Time limits for children in England and Wales is the child's 21st birthday. If you are in Scotland, the time limit is their 19th birthday. The 3 year rule only applies to adults.

I won't advise on the facts as I work in a different area of PI.

If you in a trade union or have legal expense insurance, speak to them and see if they can put you in touch with one of their panel solicitors.

[quote rwalker]@Zzelda
I do hope you're not a driver. Ever heard of keeping your eyes and ears open and taking care when approaching a school crossing?

Isn't that as useful as saying make sure that no cars coming when you step into the rd.[/quote]
Both are important but, in the vast majority of cases, the driver will be held responsible if there is an accident.

The facts are that evidence gathered ascertained that it was possible to know who was at fault. So ultimately, he could claim that she was and that the accident has left him with PTSD which is affecting him daily and counter claim on that basis.

I just can't understand how you can expect compensation for your DD without any evidence that he caused the accident.