Claiming for injuries against your own CTP?

I don't know enough about insurance law to argue with you, but it's
certainly not advertised as a separate policy.

 

some snips

Non feasance (cannot be held liable / negligent if they did nothing) is not
a defence any longer for road authorities, be they shire or state. The
precedent has been set a couple of times in the last year or so, I would
follow up.
FYI, relevant cases are "Brodie vs Singleton Shire Council" and "Ghantous vs
Hawkesbury City Council"
This doesn't mean you're going to get them to cough for the lot tho', your
lawyer should check to see if your state has implemented some sort of
statutory non feasance protection.

Additionally, it would have to be some pretty extreme rainfall event to
cause the road to fail if it was in an otherwise "reasonable" state.
Maintenance records from the council will give some pointers as to this.

For the nay sayers: I always reckoned it's not about gouging tax payer
funded bodies for any little thing, but the cases where a person, through no
major contributing negligence on their part, is pretty stuffed for a long
time, and needs support.
Good luck,

 

Which state are you in?
TAC in Vic covers medical costs, including long term and permanent
injuries to anyone involved in a motor vehicle accidents regardless of
whose at fault.
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/



Daryl

 

My cousins husband won compensation when poorly signed roadworks caused
him to crash his motorcycle, they paid for repairs to the bike and
damage to his leathers etc.
AFAIK he wasn't injured but his new Triumph was a bit messed up.
A neighbour was compensated by our local council (Shire of Melton in
Vic) when a pothole caused front end damage to his car.
Both of those cases were quite a while ago and it took a lot of legal
action and perseverance to get results but they did get compensation.




Daryl

 

Well, you've now had advice from several dozen unqualified people on
usenet with no consensus whatsoever.

And free advice from one solicitor in your state who says you can claim.

Clearly it is time to contact a solicitor in your state and find out
what the situation really is. Lets face it, would you trust this crowd
(including me, who you don't know from Adam) with $100, never mind tens
of thousands of dollars of medical claims?

 

It has nothing to do with trust or legal knowledge. I posted a question
into two groups that have to do with motor vehicles, there being a good
chance that others would have been in the same situation that I am in
now. I would not rely on a newsgroup for legal advice, but I am quite
prepared to take note of personal experience.

The responses have indicated that several people either have or are
acquainted with someone who has had a successful claim. That was what I
wanted to know before arranging to see a solicitor. If a number of
posters had come back and said they were aware of only unsuccessful
claims I might be more hesitant about seeking legal assistance.

As it is, I have spoken to an insurance ombudsman this morning who
believes that I will probably have grounds for a successful claim. I am
arranging a preliminary meeting with a solicitor this afternoon. I had a
telephone conversation with someone in his office who says that they
have won many similar cases. The vehicle is insured, not me, and in this
situation I am considered a third party. If I had been drunk, negligent,
or the vehicle was unsafe/unroadworthy, then I would not have a claim,
but as the Police report and the statements of the cars drivers behind
me all stated that it was an accident caused by a collapsed section of
road without contributory negligence on my part, I apparently do.

Possibly against the council as well, but they are claiming that the
damage was caused by a fallen tree blocking a storm drain, causing an
overflow that undermined the road surface. They also claim that they had
placed a caution poor road surface sign a kilometre or so down the road
and had the section of road queued for repairs, but neither myself nor
any of the other drivers recalls seeing a sign at the time. I have been
in telephone contact with a couple of the drivers who stopped and helped
me and they claim the sign was placed after my accident.

I was also informed in an informal discussion with the ombudsman, that
my particular CTP carrier has a $200,000.00 personal injury policy
included, but that if I accepted that, I would make it very difficult to
gain further damages. My specialists estimate my medical costs over the
next fifty years to exceed twenty-two thousand dollars a year (without
allowing for inflation) if ongoing surgery, prothesis (two artificial
joints) replacement every six years, and pharmaceutical costs are all
included. Most of this at present is paid by the Government, but if I
get a settlement, I have to repay these costs. I am paying $23.70 each
for some scripts at the moment, scripts that last ten days, but without
that Government assistance, some of these would run to more than a
thousand dollars for that ten days. Pain killers, antibiotics,
anti-inflamatory drugs and other drugs to combat the side effects of the
first drugs.

When you look at all these factors, there would be no point whatsoever
in me accepting a $200,000.00 settlement.

I will wait and see what the solicitor suggests.

Thank you to all those who responded.

Sally

ps please excuse all the run-on sentences, at the moment my head is too
fuzzy to bother with grammatically correct sentence construction.

 

That sounds like the beginnings of a plan, almost.

Good luck, chin up, and all that other back-slapping stuff...

 

Good luck, and let us know how you get on...

cheers,

big

 

Nice [LOL]

CDIHL

 

Mustang Sally wrote:

If they duck and weave, go for the jugular Sal.
All the best. We, of course, hope to here better news down the
track.

T.C. Feral

 

The way I read it, there was an implication that doctors charge or overcharge for not
providing a service or perhaps charge for providing a minimally useful service. Are
you going to tell me there wasn't at least a little sarcasm in the comment? It seemed
to imply a degree of ease in making money. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, if I
am, then I apologise. Yes, I should have taken the time to formulate a more complete
post.

The comment about Fireblade riders is a bit weird. If you search for my few posts to
this NG you'll find that I rarely engage in dim-witted banter about hymens and so
forth, despite owning a Fireblade. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I rarely
contribute here: many of the posters can't help allowing a thread to degenerate like
that or transform it into a self-congratulatory forum for the regulars.

It's posts like yours that remind me why I generally can't be bothered posting here.
To be fair, most of the other regulars provide witty, informed comment. Your posts,
however, reach a level of pomposity and self-righteousness that is unique. I think
you're trying too hard to sound intelligent.
Simon

 

LOL You're way behind Pat.
Been a long day?

T.C. Feral

 

Vulture wrote:

 

Ok, that's requirement 1 failed.

Because you, completely unexpectedly, used "apologise" in your reply, here
is a "...for Dummies" explanation, earned by civil behaviour, of what my
initial remark was illustrating:

Doctors charge for all consultations, including the initial ones, which more
often than not last less than 3 minutes and leave one with nothing more than
another condescending wanker to add to the "Never go back to again because
he is a tool" list. Lawyers, on the other hand, don't charge for an inital
sit-down-and-chat, meaning the OP has nothing to lose by contacting one,
two, or every single fucking one of the bastards and asking, "Here is my
situation. Can you help me?"... which brings us back to doctors, who respond
to that sort of approach with, "Sure. That'll be $180, including GST,
payable immediately, please.".

Doctors, being more indispensable than lawyers (if someone's rorted you, you
always have the option of taking da boyz around there for some negotiations,
you don't have to resort to a lawyer to do it; an equivalent alternative
doesn't exist with doctors, does it?), can get away with holding your
finances hostage. Lawyers cannot.

If, as I'm actually starting to suspect, you're a doctor yourself, and you
take umbrage at someone having so negative a view of your profession, then I
suggest you wave hello to Sooky and Shae.

It shouldn't've been. It was just an insult. Are you so self-important that
you have trouble recognising putdowns from the muzzle end down?

posting here.

A retort involving, in order, the words "door hit", "arse" and "way out",
comes to mind.

Which is an assessment you, as the author of

are in a perfect position to make.

And, no, I'm not going to tell you that there wasn't at least a little
sarcasm in that comment...

 

Good luck with your legal battles and your health.
Let us know how you get on.



Daryl

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 24 May 2004 14:05:56 +1000

NOt in NSW.

From www.maa.gov.au:
==
If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident as a driver, passenger,
pedestrian, cyclist or motorbike rider you can claim compensation if you
consider a driver or owner of a motor vehicle, other than you, was
partially or completely at fault.

If you were partly at fault in causing your own injuries (e.g. not
wearing a seatbelt, or helmet) you may still be able to claim but the
compensation may be less than if you were not partly at fault.

You can't make a claim if:

you were totally at fault

no-one was at fault, e.g. an animal on the road or a single
vehicle accident

the person you consider at fault was not the owner or driver of
a motor vehicle, e.g. the person was a pedestrian or cyclist.
==

Some CTP provider have extra stuff in the policy that covers the driver,
but it's usually death cover or really really really serious injury, and
it's not much.

Zebee

 

I will wait and see what the solicitor suggests.

All the best luck with it Sally, please let us know how you go with this.

Mike.S