Tragic Motorcycle Accident Survivor Compensated £5.9 Million
A retired medical physics engineer has accepted an offer of £5.9 million in compensation following a devastating motorcycle accident. The accident, which resulted in multiple severe injuries, has drastically changed the course of his life, but with the help of Stephen Hay from Gildeas Solicitors and medical professionals, he is now able to look forward to a more secure future.
Stephen applied his usual bespoke service for Mr Allum. After being given initial details by Mr Allum’s family he met with him in hospital and discussed things with his family to assist following his accident.
The Accident Circumstances
The accident occurred while Mr. Allum was in Scotland, celebrating a 60th birthday celebration. The collision left him with a fractured vertebra, multiple breaks in his legs and arms, and broken ribs. These injuries were so severe that he was placed into an induced coma for a period of time.
Mr. Allum was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, known for its expertise in spinal injuries, which are unfortunately common in motorcycle accidents. Many motorcycle accident survivors suffer back injuries, and Mr. Allum was no exception. He remained in the hospital for three months, receiving intensive care and treatment.
Ongoing care and rehabilitation
During his recovery at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Director Stephen Hay visited Mr. Allum, ensuring he knew what would be needed for him to receive the best possible care on discharge. Once his condition stabilised, Mr. Allum was transferred to a local facility in England, closer to his family home in South East.
Mr. Allum's domestic situation required significant adjustments. The family home was unsuitable for someone needing round-the-clock care and a powered wheelchair. Standing at 6’7, Mr. Allum's wheelchair had to be customised, which also limited the types of vehicles that could be adapted for his use to get out and about when he was able to do so. A more accessible home was necessary. The new home had to accommodate not only Mr. Allum's family but also provide additional living quarters for a live in nurse as he requires round the clock care. The home identified by agents retained by Gildeas required significant modifications, including ceiling tracking systems to facilitate his movement around the house.
Throughout this process, Gildeas secured interim payments to ensure that Mr. Allum and his family did not suffer financially. This was particularly crucial given his inability to work and the increased costs of hospital visits and care. Admiral, the insurer of the third party, was proactive in agreeing to payments that allowed for the acquisition and adaptation of a new house, along with a specially adapted van. This ensured that Mr. Allum's transition to his new life was as smooth as possible.
Comprehensive Medical Assessments
To accurately assess Mr. Allum's losses, multiple medical reports were obtained. These detailed the extent of his physical and neurological injuries, the type of accommodation and equipment needed, and the associated costs. The assessment of nursing care required to support Mr. Allum indicated an annual cost of £350,000, quantification of this allowed Gildeas to ensure he and is family would not be financially impacted by the accident.
Financial and Emotional Compensation
While no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss of independence Mr. Allum has experienced, the £5.9 million settlement provides significant financial security. It ensures his extensive care needs are met and that he can live as comfortably as possible given his circumstances. The settlement also includes provisions for an adapted vehicle, further enhancing his mobility and quality of life.
Stephen Hay, Director
Paul is a highly intelligent and motivated person. I was struck by how big an impact this would have on him but that he would take a pragmatic approach to things. My meetings and discussions with Paul allowed be to identify the issues he would face and what had to be addressed to meet those needs at that point and into the future.
Paul was so involved in his case he even took it upon himself to suggest improvements that could be made to the manufacturers of kit that was being supplied!
When it came to explaining why we were seeking certain amounts of money and the basis for the figures he understood what we were saying. The injuries have changed Paul’s ability to do things physically but his mental abilities are still as sharp as ever. I hope the settlement that was negotiated here will allow him and his family to move forward without having to worry about Paul’s quality of life nor the quality of his care.
In our client’s words
“Stephen assisted at all stages in my recovery, at first assisting my family whilst I was in a coma and getting things set up, then helping arrange for property experts to find a suitable home. Things have not been easy, learning to cope with complete paralysis from the chest down, and the loss of usefulness of my right arm; but at all stages Gildeas and Stephen were available for advice and support. Now I am looking forward to getting home with my family."
Conclusion
Thanks to Gildeas and the medical experts instructed, Mr. Allum can face his new reality with dignity and hope. As he continues his recovery, Mr. Allum can take comfort in knowing that his financial and practical needs are being met, allowing him to focus on rebuilding his life and finding new ways to enjoy his retirement years.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles. If you require assistance, reach out to our expert team on 0141 331 6070.
Children and contributory negligence
Introduction
Although liability in children’s road traffic accident claims is often easy to establish, the issue of contributory negligence can still arise.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence means that any damages awarded to the claimant are reduced by an amount the court considers "just and equitable," reflecting the pursuer’s share of the responsibility for the damage (s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945). The defender must prove that contributory negligence applies. Decisions are based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Running into the Road
The law typically applies an objective standard of care, but age is a notable exception. Children are not expected to exercise the same level of care as adults, and their age is considered when assessing contributory negligence.
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
In this case, a 13-year-old girl was struck by a car after emerging from behind her school bus and running into the road. The driver, traveling at about 50mph in poor light, did not slow down despite the presence of the school bus. Initially, the girl was found 90% liable for the accident due to her recklessness. On appeal, her contributory negligence was reduced to 70%, considering her age and the difficulty of assessing the car's speed in poor light. The Supreme Court further reduced it to 50%, acknowledging the complexities of crossing a major road at dusk for a child.
Child Seats
Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 mandates that drivers ensure children under 14 are properly restrained. Specific regulations require children under 12 or below 1.35 meters in height to use appropriate child seats. If a child's injuries could have been avoided with proper seating, the driver may be deemed partially responsible. However, Scottish courts have yet to provide clear guidance on this issue, so we look to English cases for insight.
J v Wilkins [2000] EWCA Civ 3024
A mother placed her two-year-old child on her lap with an adult seatbelt, which contributed to the severity of the child's injuries in a collision. Despite the mother's limited understanding of the risk, the court applied a 25% reduction in contributory negligence based on expert evidence.
Hughes v Williams [2012] EWHC 1078 (QB)
In this case, a child was injured while seated on a booster cushion not meeting safety criteria. Experts testified that proper use of a five-point harness seat would have minimised the injuries. The court determined a 25% contributory negligence, as proper restraint would have largely avoided the injuries.
Conclusion
To conclude, contributory negligence is a common argument used by defenders and neither children nor their parents are immune to such arguments being successfully made.
While children are not judged by the same standards as adults, the standard of care expected will be measured by what can reasonably be expected of a child of the same age, intelligence, and experience. As such, their age will be a highly relevant factor when deciding whether contributory negligence should be applied and at what percentage.
On the other hand, no leniency can be expected when a parent fails to safeguard their child. While the Scottish courts are yet to set clear guidance on contributory negligence in such cases, some guidance can be obtained from England where contributory negligence has been applied at 25% in cases where a child is not seated in the appropriate child seat. However, the assessment of contributory negligence is nevertheless highly fact-sensitive with each case being considered on its own.
Written by Stella Kankaanpaa
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [July 2024]. If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
Vulnerable Road Users and Liability
Written by Zoe Adamson
As part of the Bike Team, I handle personal injury claims for cyclists and motorcyclists, who are at greater risk on the road than drivers. The Highway Code emphasises their vulnerability, instructing other road users to exercise extra caution around them. However, case law indicates that cyclists and motorcyclists are not automatically favoured in accidents and must follow the same rules as everyone else.
The Highway Code
The Highway Code includes several rules to protect cyclists and motorcyclists:
Rule 160: Road users should be especially aware of cyclists and motorcyclists, as they might filter through traffic.
Rule 211: Cyclists and motorcyclists are often hard to see, especially when coming from behind, out of junctions, or filtering through traffic. Road users should look out for them, particularly when turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic.
Rule 212: Road users should give cyclists and motorcyclists plenty of space to pull out, turn right, or change direction.
Rule 213: Cyclists and motorcyclists might need to change direction suddenly to avoid road hazards like uneven surfaces, drain covers, or oily patches. Other road users should give them ample space.
These rules highlight the dangers cyclists and motorcyclists face and establish their right to filter through traffic. However, those who are filtering must also be aware of the risks involved and take care to avoid accidents.
Key Cases
Powell v Moody 1966
In this case, the motorcyclist (Plaintiff) was riding along a road with two lanes of stationary traffic. He tried to pass the traffic by riding on the right side (offside). A car driver (Defendant) was trying to turn right out of a side road and collided with the motorcyclist. The driver had been allowed to turn by another driver who left a gap in the traffic.
The court decided that both the motorcyclist and the car driver were at fault for not paying enough attention. However, the motorcyclist was found to be more at fault because riding on the right side of stationary traffic is especially dangerous. Additionally, the court felt the speed of the manoeuvre was too high. The responsibility for the accident was divided: 80% to the motorcyclist and 20% to the car driver. This decision was upheld on appeal.
Jason Moffat v Zenith Insurance Plc 2018
In this case, the cyclist (Pursuer) was riding at the speed limit of 30 mph on a street in Edinburgh. He tried to pass a car (Defender) on the left side (nearside). The car driver had signalled and checked mirrors before turning left, but still collided with the cyclist. The cyclist claimed he did not see the signal.
The court decided that the car driver had done everything reasonably expected to ensure safety, such as signalling and checking mirrors. The cyclist was found entirely at fault for the accident. The ruling emphasised that there should not be a general assumption that cyclists are always favoured in traffic accidents with cars. This decision might be different now due to updates in traffic rules after the case.
Conclusion
The Highway Code is designed to protect all road users, especially the most vulnerable like cyclists and motorcyclists. It permits filtering and instructs other road users to be cautious around cyclists and motorcyclists. However, the vulnerability of these road users does not mean they are less responsible for accidents. They are expected to follow the same rules as other road users. When handling bike cases, we cannot assume that the other party is always at fault simply because cyclists and motorcyclists are more exposed. Each case must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances to determine liability fairly.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including motorcycle and cycling accidents. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [June 2024]. If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
Understanding Whiplash: Pursuing compensation for injury claims.
Written by Michaela Christie
Introduction – causes and symptoms
Whiplash refers to various neck and spinal injuries primarily caused by road traffic accidents but can also occur due to slipping, tripping, or any abrupt jolting of the neck or upper spine. The severity of whiplash ranges from mild stiffness and discomfort to severe symptoms like headaches, disrupted sleep, and even permanent disabilities. Recovery typically occurs within 2-8 weeks for minor cases but can take several months for more serious injuries. Compensation claims are higher for those with severe symptoms or emotional distress such as anxiety or depression, which may indicate chronic whiplash. Assessing damages for such cases can be contentious.
Presenting the evidence
As with any claim for personal injury, there is generally an expectation to provide sufficient evidence. For a person to be able to prove that they have suffered a whiplash injury, they will be required to attend a medical appointment whereby an independent medical expert will ascertain the symptoms which they have suffered due to the accident. Similarly, the affected party may also visit the hospital or their GP.
Obtaining the medical records of a pursuer may also serve as supportive of their case where an injury can be corroborated. However, whiplash injuries can often take a few hours or up to a few days to become noticeable, therefore clients do not always seek immediate treatment from a GP or hospital. As such, it is common for many people to have opted to treat themselves post-accident with over-the-counter pain relief to alleviate their discomfort. Nonetheless, adequate medical evidence is regarded as a necessity in verifying the severity of the injury sustained.
Securing whiplash compensation
Negotiating a settlement figure with a defender outside of court can become quite challenging. As such, certain key factors must be taken into consideration. In addition to injury, where a loss of earnings, car and repairs costs have been incurred, it is unreasonable to provide a statement of valuation of claim to a defender without prior thorough investigation. Similarly, once the appropriate level of initial evidence has been ingathered, only then can a solicitor or claims handler advise a client on the expected outcome of compensation which they can expect to receive for their injuries.
Given every claim is different, there is no one size fits all valuation available due simply to the nature of the injuries which the pursuer may have sustained. For example, a client might have suffered an exacerbation of a serious injury previously obtained in a past and unrelated accident. Accordingly, due to the present accident an underlying asymptomatic injury may have subsequently become symptomatic. This in turn, has then caused a negative consequential impact on the daily life of the pursuer. Circumstances such as these will often alter the value of a claim. Moreover, disclosing the appropriate requested evidence subsequently enables the defenders to put forward their offer to the pursuer with the intention of settling the matter efficiently.
Conclusion
In negotiating a settlement for whiplash compensation, several factors are crucial. The severity of the injury and its impact on the claimant's life are significant considerations. When a claim reaches court, the central question is whether, how would you have been but for the other person’s negligence. What would you not have had to pay for? If you have lost income what would you have been paid? Finally, how would you have been physically and mentally had the accident not happened? Successful settlements often occur when all necessary evidence is gathered and disclosed, prompting offers from the other party. Determining the compensation amount requires thorough examination of medical evidence.
https://gildeas.net/contact-us/
What is an occupiers’ liability claim?
Written by Ciara Roche
If you are injured in a public place which is owned or rented not by a public body, then you may be entitled to raise an action under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960. This act sets out the circumstances in which a person who occupied an area of land can be held liable for the injury, property damage or death to a visitor of the land.
This type of claim can apply to a stretch of occupied land or other premises, including a fixed or moveable structure, which includes any vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
What duty of care is owed by the occupier?
It is useful to note the statutory provisions which underpin occupiers’ liability. The Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 section 1(1) explains that this act determines the care which a person who occupies or has control over land or premises is required to provide to any person entering the premises, in regards to any dangers on the premises or anything which is omitted to be done in respect of these dangers.
Section 2 of the act tells us that this care is required except where the occupier is entitled to, and does, extend, restrict, modify or exclude these obligations by agreement towards a person, where it ‘is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger.’ In essence, the occupier owes a duty of care where it is reasonably foreseeable that harm would be caused to a visitor as a result of the occupier’s act or failure to act.
What do I need to prove in order to make a successful occupiers liability claim?
The essential factor that requires to be proved in order to make a successful occupiers liability claim is that the occupier was aware, or reasonably should have been aware, of the danger on their premises and that they did not take the reasonable steps to prevent harm or injury. It is not enough for a pursuer to say that there was a danger on the premises and as result they suffered injury or damage.
There are also a number of other factors which will be relevant to a court in an occupiers’ liability case, these include:
- The nature of the danger;
- The extent of the injury or damage suffered by the pursuer;
- The probability of injury or harm;
- The age of the pursuer;
- Whether the pursuer was permitted on the premises.
As with any legal case, there are a number of defences which a defender may seek to make. The most notable are the defence of contributory negligence, meaning that the pursuer is partly at fault for their accident, and the defence of volenti non fit injuria, in other words the pursuer accepted the risk of injury. If a successful defence of contributory negligence is pled, then any damages awarded to the pursuer shall be reduced. If the defence of volenti non fit injuria is successfully pled, the occupiers’ liability claim as a whole may be unsuccessful.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including Occupiers' Liability claims. We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [March 2024].If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
The Significance of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims
Written by Michaela Christie
Introduction
The success of a personal injury claim heavily relies on the quality and strength of the evidence presented. It is not merely about conveying a persuasive argument but ensuring it aligns with tangible proof, substantiating the claimant's position. This blog explores the critical role of evidence in personal injury claims and emphasises its impact on establishing liability, obtaining necessary proof, utilising expert opinions, incorporating witness testimonies, and addressing the consequences of weak evidence.
Establishing Liability
If the Pursuer has trouble proving that the Defender is responsible for their injuries it is vital to ensure that whilst seeking reparation, their solicitor exhausts every avenue available to them whilst ingathering the evidence. As such, this may include obtaining medical records, expert reports, witness statements, photographs, dashcam footage, police precognitions and/or police reports etc which are subsequently acknowledged as corroborative. Expert opinions can be deemed necessary to establish liability and in assessing the extent of a Pursuer’s injuries, some of which may include those provided by medical experts within a specified field and specialists in accident reconstruction etc. Liability is also established by proving that the harm suffered has been directly caused by the accident. This harm sustained may include but not limited to - physical injury, psychological injury, emotional distress and financial loss.
Obtaining the Evidence
Initial documentation of the accident scene is imperative, with clients encouraged to capture photographs and measurements. Law firms routinely request medical records to verify post-accident GP or hospital visits, providing essential proof of the severity of injuries. This also aids in uncovering any pre-existing conditions undisclosed by the claimant, ensuring transparency in the claims process.
Expert Evidence
Referring to the case of Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6, the importance of expert evidence is underscored. Independent medical experts play a crucial role in assessing injuries and their impact, even in cases of seemingly minor incidents. Adhering to the Scottish Pre-Action Protocol timelines ensures a smooth progression of personal injury claims, especially in significant accidents involving insurance companies.
The Role of Witnesses
Credible witnesses significantly contribute to building a robust case. Collecting contact details promptly and securing supportive statements from witnesses is vital. The urgency in gathering witness evidence stems from the natural deterioration of recollections over time. The Anderson v Jas B Fraser & Co Ltd 1992 S.L.T 1129 case highlights the competence of witness statements obtained during precognition in supporting a claim.
Disadvantages of Weak Evidence
Claims supported by indisputable evidence are more likely to secure successful outcomes. Conversely, weak or insufficient evidence may lead to contention, resulting in reduced settlement offers or unsuccessful claims. The clear establishment of the link between the accident and injury is crucial to avoid complications and additional costs associated with updated reports.
Conclusion
Compelling evidence is essential when establishing liability. This provides justification as to who was at fault for an accident and forms the basis of any victorious personal injury case.
Concrete evidence enables Defenders and/or the courts to measure the severity and impact of the harm sustained by the Pursuer. Furthermore, the strength of the evidence can positively influence negotiations and encourage the other side to settle the claim for a much greater monetary value.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including road traffic accidents.We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [February 2024].If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
Pothole injury claims
Written by Stella Kankaanpaa
Introduction to pothole injury claims
The majority of roads in Scotland are public and governed by the local authority or council for the area, with section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 imposing a statutory duty upon them to inspect and maintain these roads. This therefore means that it is the local councils that are responsible for carrying out regular inspections and arranging for necessary repairs to be made. A failure to fulfil this duty through neglecting a pothole can therefore lead to the local council being subject to a personal injury claim.
However, while any individual who has suffered an accident due to a pothole can make pothole injury claims against the local council, not everyone will be successful. As the majority of roads in Scotland are owned and operated by the local councils, the court acknowledges that the burden upon them is vast with them being unable to immediately become aware of each pothole and repair it. For example, figures obtained by the Scottish Conservatives under the Freedom of Information legislation showed that less than 20% of pothole claims were successful in 2021/2022.
It is, in other words, not enough to simply show that a pothole had developed on a public road and that an injury had occurred as a result of it.
Requirements for a successful claim
To successfully claim against a local council for a pothole injury, the following must be proven:
- Duty of Care
Firstly, for a local council to be held liable, it must be proven that the local authority owed a duty of care and that they had breached their duty.
As set out by Lord Drummond Young in MacDonald v Aberdeenshire Council [2014] SC 114 at para 64, the local council must be at fault for failing to deal with the defect by it being proven that had they exercised reasonable care, they would have identified the hazard and taken steps to correct it. It must therefore be proven that the local council had (1) either been aware of the pothole or that they should have been aware of it and (2) that they had had sufficient time to repair it, but failed to do so.
The first step to take is therefore to find out whether the local council had already been made aware of the pothole by someone having reported it.
If no one has, or you cannot find out if anyone has, the local council’s code of practices and cycle of inspections may instead be relied upon. These, amongst other, set out the timescales for the inspection and maintenance of different categories of roads and pavements. However, at the outset, it can be noted that while motorways and other main roads should be frequently inspected, minor or local roads are often only required to be inspected every 12 months. As such, it may be acceptable for a local council to be unaware of an unreported pothole for up to a year.
Furthermore, as clarified in Syme v Scottish Borders Council [2002] and Pocock v The Highland Council [2017] CSOH 40, a failure by a local council to follow their own policies or plans is not by itself sufficient as a policy cannot dictate the content of the duty of reasonable care. This, therefore, allows the local council to escape liability in some cases if it can only be shown that they had exercised reasonable care in the maintenance and repair of the road in question.
Obtaining evidence in the form of records of previous complaints, maintenance schedules, and eyewitness accounts is therefore of crucial importance.
- Causation - that the injury was caused by the local council's negligence
Secondly, the chances of success are further dependent on the size of the defect in question.
Previous judgments have generally required potholes to be at least 40mm deep if an accident took place on the road and 20mm deep if it took place on a pavement. Measuring and recording the depth of the pothole as soon as possible after an accident has taken place is therefore recommended.
However, a pothole does not always have to meet the above measurements. In areas where there is a higher footfall or more vulnerable road users, such as in car parks, schools, hospitals, and care homes, a higher standard of maintenance can be expected.
How much compensation can you expect?
The amount of compensation that can be awarded if making a successful claim will naturally depend on the nature and duration of the injuries but can further be limited by the extent to which the local council is found liable.
For example, if the injured party had paid inadequate attention to the road in question, they may have been contributorily negligent and be deemed partially liable for their own injuries (Hutchison v North Lanarkshire Council [2007] CSOH 23, para 8 and 22).
Conclusion
To conclude, while successfully claiming against a local council for a pothole injury claims is not impossible, it can be a challenging task. This is because in order to succeed, it must be proven that the local council owed and breached their duty of care and that this breach directly caused the accident.
Many claims fail at the first stage as the court has acknowledged that the burden placed upon the local councils is vast, with it being impossible for them to inspect and repair each road as often as may be required.
However, steps can be taken at the outset by a client to increase their chances of succeeding by, amongst other:
- Measuring the depth of the pothole/defect as soon as possible after the accident and taking photos of this to prove that the pothole was sufficiently large. Ensure the photos show the wider area and nearby landmarks, as well as close up images.
- Checking the scene of the accident for possible CCTV cameras and speaking to any witnesses at the scene. It may be helpful to speak to any locals who may know how long the pothole has existed
- Reporting the pothole to the local council so that you can prove when the accident took place
- It may also help someone else later if you see a pothole or defect opening up and report it. Once the council has been notified that there is a defect, they’ll be expected to check it, monitor it or repair it. If they don’t and an accident happens later, that person will have a higher chance of succeeding because someone before them reported it.
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including road traffic accidents.We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [February 2024]. If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
How to secure compensation against untraced or uninsured drivers
What is the Motor Insurer’s Bureau (MIB)?
The Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) is an organisation that exists to compensate innocent victims of road traffic accidents who have been injured or had their property damaged by an uninsured or untraced driver. The MIB is a non-profit organisation that is funded by the insurance premiums of UK drivers and is intended to be a “fund of last resort”. Therefore, if any other policy of insurance covers the claim or any part of it, it must be directed to the relevant insurer.
In short, this means that if you have been injured in an accident caused by an uninsured driver or untraced (i.e. a “hit and run” type situation) you will still be able to claim compensation for your pain, suffering and other financial losses.
When dealing with the MIB, it is always better to consult with a personal injury solicitor in order to get the correct guidance and maximise the level of compensation awarded, particularly as the MIB have their own policies and procedures which must be adhered to in order for the claim to be successful.
What do the MIB do?
The MIB carry out a number of schemes:
- Claims against untraced drivers
- Claims against uninsured drivers
- Claims against a foreign registered vehicle
- Claims from an accident abroad
What can be claimed for through the MIB?
- Personal Injury
- Vehicle damage
- Property damage
- Wrongful death
- Uninsured loss (e.g loss of earnings/ policy excess)
Making a claim against an uninsured driver
It is illegal to drive a vehicle in the UK without being insured and could result in a £300 fixed penalty notice and 6 points on your license. In more serious cases, it could result in prosecution and/ or a complete driving ban. Despite this, many people knowingly drive without valid insurance and it can cause serious issues for people who are involved in an accident with them. The MIB reported in December 2023 that every 20 minutes someone in the UK is hit by an uninsured or hit-and-run driver and, tragically, each day at least once person suffers such severe injuries that they require lifelong care. According to the figures published by the MIB last year, uninsured driving increases the annual premium for each UK driver by approximately £53 per year.
Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement
Claims involving uninsured drivers are governed by the 2015 Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement which applies to any accidents occurring on or after 1 August 2015. In situations where no insurer can be traced, the MIB will effectively step in and take their place.
Making a claim against an untraced/ Hit-and-Run driver
In Scotland, if you are a victim of a hit and run accident, you may be eligible for compensation through the MIB. To make a claim, you must meet certain criteria, for instance, you must have reported the incident to the police within a specified time frame, usually 14 days, and provide the MIB with all of the necessary information and evidence to investigate the claim. It would also be useful to make your own investigations and ingather as much evidence as possible before submitting the claim, for instance, requesting CCTV and dash cam footage from the locus. This can make it easier for the Police to trace the third party driver/ vehicle.
What will the compensation cover?
The compensation can cover a range of damages, such as medical expenses, property damage, loss of earnings and pain and suffering. The amount of compensation which you will receive will depend on the circumstances of the accident and the extent of your injuries.
Untraced Drivers’ Agreement
Untraced claims are dealt with through the 2017 Untraced Drivers’ Agreement and applies to all accidents occurring after 1 March 2017.
Typical scenarios
- Driver may think that it was a minor accident and fail to stop at the scene.
- In some cases, people drive off unintentionally without realising they have been involved in an accident, e.g. larger vehicles such as HGVs.
- A pedestrian may be struck by a vehicle and the driver may leave the scene without checking if the person is ok.
- A vehicle may have been cloned.
- False or incorrect details may be exchanged at the scene.
Written by Kyanna White
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including road traffic accidents.
We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.
Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [January 2024].
If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.
Biker seriously injured in a road traffic accident because of negligent driver
Overview of the case
Our client was injured when a car driver who was not looking pulled out into her path while she was on her motorbike in North-East Scotland. Despite the fact the police suggested our client should have paid more attention to the car coming on the major city road and the police not saying the car driver was entirely to blame we argued the car driver was fully at fault. The insurers of the car also tried to suggest some of the blame for the accident should be shouldered by our client but again this was knocked back by Gildeas.
Injuries sustained by the client
Our client had been travelling below the applicable speed limit when the car pulled out into her path, she collided with the car and fell to the ground. Despite her wearing full protective kit she sustained life changing injuries.
Her head hit the ground and she sustained a traumatic brain injury, she also bit through her tongue and suffered injuries to her hands. Our was a trained chef who taught at a local college. How could she demonstrate how to use a knife to her students with hand and wrist injuries? How could she taste their food when she had bitten through her tongue and cause permanent damage to it?
The outcome of the case
Fortunately for our client, her insurers suggested Gildeas could assist her in putting her life back together after the road traffic accident. Gildeas investigated all of her injuries, both physical and mental.
After attending for various examinations Gildeas were in a position to provide tailored advice to her in terms of what her losses were and what we had to recover on her behalf to allow her to move on. A court action was raised and following lengthy discussions and negotiations with the other side an offer of more than £250,000 was secured. Given the initial offer made was £100.000 this is a significant increase on what was initially offered by the other side before a court action was raised and was almost double the offer made initially by the solicitors for her insurers.
Our client is very grateful to Gildeas for the advice you received and guidance. Whenever she was worried about something she knew she could call and receive an explanation as to why something was happening or not as the case may be.
Comment from the client:
Stephen Hay, thank you so much for representing me after life-changing injuries in a bike crash due to other’s negligence. Thorough professionalism, patience, toleration & understanding was received on every level, keeping me fully informed throughout. Everything explained accurately, briefly & clearly simplifying it for me to understand on many occasions. You knocked it out of the park! I wish yourself Stephen, Fergus Thomson (advocate) & everyone at team Gildeas all the very best, as first class solicitors to professionally deal with from start to finish.
Director Stephen Hay says:
“This case was complex, she was injured just before lockdown, her treatment options on the NHS were limited given the stresses experienced by the NHS from March 2020 onwards. There was also the issue of considering but for the accident what would our client have done? There was a significant mental injury element to the claim. She loved to be on her motorbike. She used it daily to get to and from work. Her confidence was severely knocked because she lost her independence, her ability to do things and with lockdown she felt unable to leave her home. We worked with her and with our partners to arrange for treatment, both physical and mental. When we were ready, we were able to discuss what the future would hold for our client, what she would need and what she would be able to do before approaching the other side to discuss what they would need to pay. At all times our client was engaged and part of the process and I am delighted that she is now able to put this accident behind her and move on with her life.”
Gildeas Solicitors have offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh and specialise in personal injury cases, including road traffic accidents.
We go the extra mile for our clients by providing services such as roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, and hire vehicles.
Customer satisfaction is our top priority. According to customer reviews , among civil law firms with over 200 reviews, we proudly hold the second highest rating in Glasgow. We currently have a stellar rating of 4.9 on Reviews Io and 4.7 on Google [January 2024].
If you require any assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our dedicated New Claims team at 0141 331 6070.