Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

I had to feel sorry for a chap who called me a few days ago.

He was on his motorcycle when he was forced to take avoiding action because of a careless driver.

As a result of taking avoiding action he was unable to avoid hitting a pothole which in turn threw him off his bike and a 4x4 travelling in the opposite direction ran over him.

As a result, the rider sustained multiple life changing injuries including 120+ fractures to his head, a fractured eye socket, multiple fractures to ribs, arms, legs, nerve damage, sliced liver, punctured lungs (with many other injuries resulting in 4 weeks in intensive care) and which has now left him unable to work for the rest of his days.

His insurance campany and a law firm told him that he had no claim because of the circumstances even though they did not investigate or obtain full details.

As a result he let it go and did nothing further as he believed his insurance company and the law firm he spoke to knew what they were talking about.

By chance someone suggested that he had a chat with me to see if I might be able to help or give him some advice.

We had a long conversation and it was quickly obvious he had a very valid claim.

Trouble is, this crash happened 4 years ago and so statute of limitation kicked in.

He cannot plead incapacity because despite no memory and ongoing brain injury he is able to make his own decsions and so to my regret I was unable to help him.

But it got me wondering how many others (especially motorcyclists) have suffered life changing injuries through no fault of their own and been told they have no claim, do nothing further about it and then find later that they do in fact have a valid claim but by that time it is too late to do anything?

We regularly hear of the false and fictitious claims, but I bet there are just as many genuine claims that get passed by, bearing in mind that as a country we are not a litigious state. We are actually ranked about 40th

Not good reading TC and I feel for the poor fella.

Reading his experience and the crash scenario that could have so easily been kwacky a few days ago in France.

Lucky boy Kwacky and gladly so

The statute of limitations is supposed to, and/or needs to, take issues like this into account ....so it's not in place from the date of the incident but from the time it's first reported, a claim is filed, etc.
120+ fractures to his head (!!!!!) ought to be enough to indicate there's likely to be some memory issues, but that doesn't mean the guy's claim should be invalidated, if anything it should reinforce it.

D41 wrote:The statute of limitations is supposed to, and/or needs to, take issues like this into account ....so it's not in place from the date of the incident but from the time it's first reported, a claim is filed, etc.
120+ fractures to his head (!!!!!) ought to be enough to indicate there's likely to be some memory issues, but that doesn't mean the guy's claim should be invalidated, if anything it should reinforce it.

Read what I typed.

I did say that was one of the first things that crossed my mind.

I am fuly aware of the statute of limitations, and statue of limitation applues from the date of injury or the date of knowledge, whichever is the sooner. (The clock does not start ticking when its forst reported or a claim filed.)

The exception is in the case of individuals who are incapable of looking after their own affair or juveniles.

He is and was capable of looking after his own affairs, so the exception to the limiataion does not apply.

T.C. wrote:...His insurance campany and a law firm told him that he had no claim because of the circumstances even though they did not investigate or obtain full details........................

.......................We had a long conversation and it was quickly obvious he had a very valid claim.

Trouble is, this crash happened 4 years ago and so statute of limitation kicked in................

Fwiw it seems to me that the appropriate course of action would be to litigate against his own law firm, for his losses.: -From what you tell us it would appear that they failed in their duty to him, and as a result of their professional misconduct he has lost out.?


/edit.: Unless I've misread/misunderstood your post TC.

T.C. wrote:

D41 wrote:The statute of limitations is supposed to, and/or needs to, take issues like this into account ....so it's not in place from the date of the incident but from the time it's first reported, a claim is filed, etc.
120+ fractures to his head (!!!!!) ought to be enough to indicate there's likely to be some memory issues, but that doesn't mean the guy's claim should be invalidated, if anything it should reinforce it.

Read what I typed.

I did say that was one of the first things that crossed my mind.

I am fuly aware of the statute of limitations, and statue of limitation applues from the date of injury or the date of knowledge, whichever is the sooner. (The clock does not start ticking when its forst reported or a claim filed.)

The exception is in the case of individuals who are incapable of looking after their own affair or juveniles.

He is and was capable of looking after his own affairs, so the exception to the limiataion does not apply.

I was just agreeing with you.

D41 wrote:

T.C. wrote:

D41 wrote:The statute of limitations is supposed to, and/or needs to, take issues like this into account ....so it's not in place from the date of the incident but from the time it's first reported, a claim is filed, etc.
120+ fractures to his head (!!!!!) ought to be enough to indicate there's likely to be some memory issues, but that doesn't mean the guy's claim should be invalidated, if anything it should reinforce it.

Read what I typed.

I did say that was one of the first things that crossed my mind.

I am fuly aware of the statute of limitations, and statue of limitation applues from the date of injury or the date of knowledge, whichever is the sooner. (The clock does not start ticking when its forst reported or a claim filed.)

The exception is in the case of individuals who are incapable of looking after their own affair or juveniles.

He is and was capable of looking after his own affairs, so the exception to the limiataion does not apply.

I was just agreeing with you.

OK

Jesus that must of been scary for that rider. It's a shame it was too late for the rider to do anything about it

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk