I am due in the High Court in connection with an RTA which was caused by the defendents car pulling out in front of mine. I have no previous convictions, claims or crashes. However the Defendant has had a history of accident in cars due to his reckless driving, these accidents were all untraced by guards as they happened on country road and he managed to get the cars towed out before any guards came along. How do I proved to the judge in the High court that this man is a reckless driver and is the cause of my serious injuries.?
Defendent had several previous accidents
- Thread starter John joe
- Start date
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Surely you have discussed this with your solicitor?
I would imagine that if his accidents were not on record there is nothing you can do - on paper he probably has no convictions, claims or crashes either and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.
Did any of his previous accidents involve other drivers?
please!. I am representing myself. No solicitor involved due to corruption!
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
The standard way of proving these things is to give evidence as follows:
"Everbody knows..............."
"I talked to a lad who heard it from another lad....." or , my personal favourite
"ask anyone in (killybuckscuttle, or wherever) and they'll tell ya.."
Seriously, the rules of evidence are mostly founded in common sense. You need to have people with first hand knowledge (i.e. actual witnesses) to prove that this guy has had a load of previous accidents. So they need to have seen the crash, or towed the wreck or (best of all) have been paid off by the guy. Good luck with that.
Of course, it is possible that this might entitle his insurer to say 'we are voiding this insurance policy on grounds of non-disclosure'. Dear oh dear, this law business seems complicated. Who'da thunk it.
And what with almost every solicitor being corrupt, and most of the judges being in on it. you are right up against it. But good luck anyway. Seriously. Going to the High Court without legal representation and a semi-dodgy case, you will need lots of luck.
"Everbody knows..............."
"I talked to a lad who heard it from another lad....." or , my personal favourite
"ask anyone in (killybuckscuttle, or wherever) and they'll tell ya.."
Seriously, the rules of evidence are mostly founded in common sense. You need to have people with first hand knowledge (i.e. actual witnesses) to prove that this guy has had a load of previous accidents. So they need to have seen the crash, or towed the wreck or (best of all) have been paid off by the guy. Good luck with that.
Of course, it is possible that this might entitle his insurer to say 'we are voiding this insurance policy on grounds of non-disclosure'. Dear oh dear, this law business seems complicated. Who'da thunk it.
And what with almost every solicitor being corrupt, and most of the judges being in on it. you are right up against it. But good luck anyway. Seriously. Going to the High Court without legal representation and a semi-dodgy case, you will need lots of luck.
Are you seriously going to the High Court and representing yourself?
Sunny, if you read this thread from the OP it might explain a few things.
YES! And you might also want to read this thread to understand why I will represent myself! http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=86417
Is this related to the previous thread where OP wanted to make a claim to MIBI because OP was uninsured?? Is it the same incident?
If so, it seems we would have a situation where OP was uninsured on the day but wants to base his case in part on the fact that he has "no previous convictions, claims or crashes" and should therefore be believed by the court, while a third party has several (unproven) crashes, and is therefore lacking in credibility. Am I reading this correctly?.
John Joe, if I am understanding your situation correctly, would you please please please do yourself a favour and get proper legal advice and representation. You cannot reasonably expect to bring such a half-assed case to the High Court and get a good result. You are going to end up in a situation, like many lay litigants, where you think you have been unjustly treated by 'the system' and if you obsess about it, there is the possibility that it may well ruin your life. The system has rules. Lawyers are necessary. A necessary evil in some eyes, but nevertheless necessary. Do yourself a favour.
If so, it seems we would have a situation where OP was uninsured on the day but wants to base his case in part on the fact that he has "no previous convictions, claims or crashes" and should therefore be believed by the court, while a third party has several (unproven) crashes, and is therefore lacking in credibility. Am I reading this correctly?.
John Joe, if I am understanding your situation correctly, would you please please please do yourself a favour and get proper legal advice and representation. You cannot reasonably expect to bring such a half-assed case to the High Court and get a good result. You are going to end up in a situation, like many lay litigants, where you think you have been unjustly treated by 'the system' and if you obsess about it, there is the possibility that it may well ruin your life. The system has rules. Lawyers are necessary. A necessary evil in some eyes, but nevertheless necessary. Do yourself a favour.
Seems as though you got your money back - go and put it on a different solicitor (perhaps one recommended by a friend). I'm sorry but from reading all of the posts about your accident it seems as though you need somebody to blame for the accident. Your initial post about the MIBI made no mention of the fact that the other driver caused the accident - are you sure he caused the accident?, were you perhaps driving too fast to stop etc. I really think that [1] you need a solicitor [2] you have to accept responsibility for being uninsured. I don't wish to be cruel but from the details supplied you are the one at fault despite your previous good record of driving. Your injuries seem severe don't take a chance and represent yourself, you had one bad experience with a solicitor - these things happen!. If nothing else maybe you could talk to a legalaid solicitor - you may qualify for this given your inability to work etc.
There was a local case here not so long ago. The client was due a payment from an insurance company for €9000. Guess what happened? Yea the client ended up with €3,000 and the solicitor got €6,000. The list is endedless, I could go on and on when it comes to solictors administering the Money
And for MOB post. Yes I was insured in my own car. Therefore paying my contributation towards the MIBI. The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.
R
rmelly
Guest
Sorry, I'm a bit confused here - were you insured on the car you were driving?
The car I was driving didn't belong to me therefore I couldn't and was not insured on it. The owner of the car failed to insure it. Hope you helps and you can come up with a resonable answer
R
rmelly
Guest
Sorry, but I'm still not getting this. Good luck anyway...
You keep stating that you paid the levy for the MIBI but like everybody here has pointed out, the MIBI deals with claims from parties involved in an accident with uninsured vehicles. Was the Third Party unsinsured? Was he the cause of the accident? Who knows!! Because you have never provided any of this information in either thread on this matter!!
If you were the cause, forget about it and move on!
If you were the cause, forget about it and move on!