Ouch!! That hurt. Chief Constable disappointed. Options

[JeffG]

I've never once tripped over a curb going to someones house.

Probably because we don't have them in the UK.

[motormad]

According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.

What does that word even mean.........

[On the edge]

It's a legal sound bite word. These days generally used to mean awkward. Bad reporting here, this isn't a vexatious claim, rather an unjustified and incorrect one. Vexatious really means someone continually resorting to litigation which has little justification other than to cause the opposite party a nuisance. However it really is a weasel word these days beloved of the technical college lawyer, usually to cover their own failings.

[pbonnay]

It's a legal sound bite word. These days generally used to mean awkward. Bad reporting here, this isn't a vexatious claim, rather an unjustified and incorrect one. Vexatious really means someone continually resorting to litigation which has little justification other than to cause the opposite party a nuisance. However it really is a weasel word these days beloved of the technical college lawyer, usually to cover their own failings.

Here, vexatious is used to describe a claim of little or no merit, brought to annoy or to bully for example. I know it is used in a lazy fashion by some, but may apply here if it is believed that the claim was brought to upset and worry the garage owner so he would put the matter to his business insurers with a plea for them to get rid of the problem with an offer. The use of this word to "cover their own failings" does not make any sense.

The claimant is not a vexatious litigant however - only the High Court can decide if someone is, and usually only after many actions.

Edit: Contrary to earlier reports about it being dropped, latest news is that the claim is still live!
http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/pc-kelly-jon...erself-3579038/

[Exhausted]

Contrary to earlier reports about it being dropped, latest news is that the claim is still live!
http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/pc-kelly-jon...erself-3579038/

Beggars belief. If you have a child with you and it trips over, you say to it, in an irritated way, "Watch where you're going". Unfortunate that this police officer wasn't given this advice when she was a child.

[GMR]

Beggars belief. If you have a child with you and it trips over, you say to it, in an irritated way, "Watch where you're going". Unfortunate that this police officer wasn't given this advice when she was a child.

No, you've got it wrong; you now instruct your child, if she or he slips or injures themselves, is that their first thought should be to Sue. The second thought is lawyer and the third thought is money; no necessarily in that order.

[Simon Kirby]

According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.

I think she's been well advised to do so. She's taken a lot of disapprobation over this and that seems to be entirely because she's a police officer. I think it was an ill-advised thing to do, but any of us are capable of acting ill-advisedly and to take such heat just because you're a police officer seems harsh to me. Obviously I know next to nothing about what really went on, but like OtE I wonder that the solicitor shouldn't have refused to take instruction in the best interests of the officer.

Got to feel sorry for the garage owner though, can't be nice being sued. I'm pleased sense prevailed in the end. Perhaps he might have done better to write to the chief constable first though rather than going to the press.

Edit: Oh, if she hasn't withdrawn her claim then that is a shame.

[Simon Kirby]

No, you've got it wrong; you now instruct your child, if she or he slips or injures themselves, is that their first thought should be to Sue. The second thought is lawyer and the third thought is money; no necessarily in that order.

I'm sorry, but this is just so much nonsense.

Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?

[GMR]

I'm sorry, but this is just so much nonsense.

I was being ironic, however, the culture, our culture, is getting very much like America; which is a sue culture.

Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?

Not everything is black or white as you suggest. We are seeing more and more people creating situations where suing is beneficial and rewarding. It was reported on the news awhile back where there is a scam going were you ram on your breaks, forcing the other driver to hit you. Claiming whiplash and damage to your car. This can be very rewarding. In some cases they disconnect the break lights.

[JeffG]

Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you?

No I wouldn't. I would expect his insurance to pay, (and for him to be charged a suitably loaded premium in the future for his carelessness - but that's nothing to do with me). I am sick of the compensation culture and associated litigation at the drop of a hat we are getting into.

[Exhausted]

Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?

Slightly different scenario. The kerb didn't lift out of the ground like a bollard. She was careless.
The driver in your cameo was not under your control and of course you should expect to be recompensed as she would also have every right if instead of falling ar:se over t1t, someone had crashed into her.
Let's hope that if it goes to court she will be given 5p in compensation (cost of the bandaid) but of course her injuries 'r' us legal team will still get their barristers fees.
About time someone got a grip of all this profiteering by the legal fat cats.

[Simon Kirby]

No I wouldn't. I would expect his insurance to pay, (and for him to be charged a suitably loaded premium in the future for his carelessness - but that's nothing to do with me). I am sick of the compensation culture and associated litigation at the drop of a hat we are getting into.

Sure, his insurance pays because insurance companies are sensible and know that if their client ran into the back of you at lights then he is 100% responsible for the accident. More specifically, insurance companies know that, were they to refuse to settle such a claim, then you could successfully sue for damages in court.

The point here is that insurance companies only pay up because ultimately the court would compel them, and they know very well when they're on a hiding to nothing and it's simply not worth their time and money defending the indefensible.

The situation is essentially no different with personal injury, the difficulty is that not everyone who causes a personal injury carries public liability insurance, and of those who don't may will obstinately and ignorantly deny their liability when they are entirely and indefensibly liable, so even when you are injured due to a negligent breach of a duty of care you will often have to resort to court action to achieve the settlement which, were it a car accident, would be a hassle-free claim and cheque by return of post.

[Simon Kirby]

Slightly different scenario. The kerb didn't lift out of the ground like a bollard. She was careless.
The driver in your cameo was not under your control and of course you should expect to be recompensed as she would also have every right if instead of falling ar:se over t1t, someone had crashed into her.
Let's hope that if it goes to court she will be given 5p in compensation (cost of the bandaid) but of course her injuries 'r' us legal team will still get their barristers fees.
About time someone got a grip of all this profiteering by the legal fat cats.

It's not at all clear to me that the police officer has any case. It doesn't sound as though she has suffered any loss because the police service have fully supported and rehabilitated her, and it's not obvious to me that the garage owner has been negligent in failing to light the curb.

[GMR]

It's not at all clear to me that the police officer has any case. It doesn't sound as though she has suffered any loss because the police service have fully supported and rehabilitated her, and it's not obvious to me that the garage owner has been negligent in failing to light the curb.

To be honest it isn't obviously to anybody other than the police woman and her lawyer.