Mike Todd Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I remember it, a frequent poster in here but can't remember which one. I think the gist of it was that it was both boats responsibility to avoid the collision, so liability on a "knock for knock" basis. It was however suggested by the lawyer that as the skipper was responsible for the safety of his wife, she could probably sue him for her injuries. Tipton factory jn so a search will probably bring it up. Not found it . . . If I recall the junction correctly it is really a three way junction (despite what it seem son a map) with no obvious priority which might make a difference. I cannot really imagine that in the case of square-on junctions (eg start of Engine Arm) that a boat would be expected to maintain a forward lookout. What happens to single handers? Edited February 9, 2017 by Mike Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 I've an idea the thread was by the poster Keeping Up. Not sure if it was his boat hit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicknorman Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) Got it http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83473 And really starting at this post. http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83473&p=1789146 Edited February 9, 2017 by nicknorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam & Di Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 In that case Keeping Up only got any recompense by taking the issue to the Small Claims Court (his post #127 in that thread) as the Solicitors supposedly pursuing his insurance claim refused to do so as they felt it unlikely to succeed. Whether a Solicitor more experienced in boating matters rather than in insurance matters would have been successful can only be a matter for conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Todd Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Well . . . that thread does put a better complexion on the matter: as I suggested earlier, this is not in practice a clear t-junction. In any event, when it went to court, the owner of the damaged boat did obtain compensation, almost as if it had been as at first suggested in this thread. The earlier unsatisfactory response was not, I suggest, as the result of a solicitor not knowing about canals and navigating them but more that they took a very pessimistic view of insurance claims, about which they probably knew quite a lot. In many circumstances when the claim is relatively small, the insurance company declines to go to court but reaches a settlement with the other party's insurer. This reflects the extraordinary costs of court action and is all about reducing the costs of claims overall, even if it does not feel fair to the injured party. Indeed, the claimant has almost no say in whether the claim is contested or whether each side agrees to meet their own client's costs. In principle this should not affect the injured party as they get their claim settled anyway. The real problem lies in the fact that most insurance policies offer attractive No Claims Discounts. It is possible to find policies that are less aggressive regarding NCD in the face of disputed claims but I suspect that they will always appear to be not the cheapest. Ultra low premiums are at that level, compared with the market, for a good reason. Many claims for personal injury, when they come to court, do involve often complex considerations of who is liable and this can be the easiest route for a lawyer seeking to oppose a claim - assert that the other party is at least in part at fault so that the claim is thereby reduced. These arguments then extend the time in court and hence the cost. It makes it more likely that an insurance company will settle rather than take a risk. As has been said here several times in other contexts, going to court has an uncertain outcome. Sometimes much better to negotiate as you are in much better control up to the point when a decision is taken to accept or reject. You can always make counter offers unlike with the court. In the end I would conclude that this incident is not much relevant to the original purpose of the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machpoint005 Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 I carry out a lot of "expert witness" work in my own field, and although costs budgets are agreed with the Court beforehand by both sides, my fees make up about 2% of them in most cases. I'm not complaining, though. There are two groups of people who really benefit from personal injury claims. (1) The Claimant's solicitors (2) The Defendant's solicitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JACK FELL Posted February 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 HI RESPONDERS, CATWEASEL HAS GOT IT RIGHT AGAIN. LET US NAME A SOLICITOR WITH WATERWAYS KNOWLEDGE FIRST--- THEN ALL WILL BE REVEALED IN DUE COURSE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machpoint005 Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 HI RESPONDERS, CATWEASEL HAS GOT IT RIGHT AGAIN. LET US NAME A SOLICITOR WITH WATERWAYS KNOWLEDGE FIRST--- THEN ALL WILL BE REVEALED IN DUE COURSE! Starting a new thread doesn't entitle anyone to SHOUT ABOUT THE ANSWERS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Starting a new thread doesn't entitle anyone to SHOUT ABOUT THE ANSWERS He types in upper case because he uses a small screened phone. I am seeing more of this on other forums and social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 He types in upper case because he uses a small screened phone. I am seeing more of this on other forums and social media. Unlike everyone else on here who uses a small screened phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magictime Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 LET US NAME A SOLICITOR WITH WATERWAYS KNOWLEDGE FIRST Help us out here. Are you looking for someone with an intimate knowledge of 'waterways law' - boat licensing, mooring rights, navigation rights etc.? Because on the face of it, that sort of hard-to-find expertise doesn't seem relevant to an accident/injury claim. Or are you just looking for a solicitor with a level of general familiarity with the waterways - enough to grasp what you're talking about when you describe the circumstances in which you were injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 There is a solicitor who posts here from time to time. Clearly has a good grasp of 'waterways law'. I'm sure s/he will make themselves known if they feel they can help. But this seems unlikely given your coyness so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Unlike everyone else on here who uses a small screened phone. Unless of course he has shite eyesight like me? If I had to use a phone constantly it would be much easier to type in caps. I struggle enough on the laptop! That aside I do feel it is a rather pretentious issue. It is said to be against the "rules" but then so is swearing, yet I see more and more of this on the net (admittedly not much serious swearing on CWDF.) However swearing does not especially bother me, neither does upper case text. Each to their own I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerra Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Unless of course he has shite eyesight like me? If I had to use a phone constantly it would be much easier to type in caps. I struggle enough on the laptop! That aside I do feel it is a rather pretentious issue. It is said to be against the "rules" but then so is swearing, yet I see more and more of this on the net (admittedly not much serious swearing on CWDF.) However swearing does not especially bother me, neither does upper case text. Each to their own I suppose. The problem with upper case is it makes reading more difficult. The brain unconsciously uses the shape of the block created by lower case to help quickly decide what the words is. I have had classes "read" a sentence on the board made up of only the block shapes of the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 The problem with upper case is it makes reading more difficult. The brain unconsciously uses the shape of the block created by lower case to help quickly decide what the words is. I have had classes "read" a sentence on the board made up of only the block shapes of the words. Time for another outing of this little gem too then! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) The problem with upper case is it makes reading more difficult. The brain unconsciously uses the shape of the block created by lower case to help quickly decide what the words is. I have had classes "read" a sentence on the board made up of only the block shapes of the words. Makes it easier for me...especially when using the phone. Edited February 9, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Marshall Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 I'm trying to think how CRT staff negligence could lead to a claim. Putting bollards where you can trip over them? Not tidying up the lock surround? Letting the bank collapse so your boat sinks? Lock walls with protruding stones was a recent one. I imagine proving negligence on an extremely aged system that's constantly teetering on the verge of falling to bits could be tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machpoint005 Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Makes it easier for me...especially when using the phone. My eyesight has never been good, but my specs work extremely well. Time for another outing of this little gem too then! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Nice one Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace42 Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I carry out a lot of "expert witness" work in my own field, and although costs budgets are agreed with the Court beforehand by both sides, my fees make up about 2% of them in most cases. I'm not complaining, though. There are two groups of people who really benefit from personal injury claims. (1) The Claimant's solicitors (2) The Defendant's solicitors. To both, whether win or lose I might add! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Bender Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I recommend my Solicitor 01279638832 Ref After 4 years - CRT Settle Out of Court. Attwaters, Rothwell House , West Square HARLOW Essex CM20 1LQ. Expect the worst from CRT and remember - Quote CRT QC - "CRT will settle out of court rather than have it on record that they are guilty. That would not go down well with the Charity Commission." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace42 Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Time for another outing of this little gem too then! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Great! I had little trouble making sense of it, but out of interest I've run it through my spellchecker and replaced each 'wrong' word with one off the top of the list:- ?? to a searcher at MacBride Innervation, it doesn't matter in what order the letters in a word are, the only omnipresent thing is that the freest and LSAT letter be at the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it outhit corbel. Tish is because the human mind does not read Hervey letter by leftist, but the word as a whole. Not bad really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hounddog Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 I'm trying to think how CRT staff negligence could lead to a claim. Putting bollards where you can trip over them? Not tidying up the lock surround? Letting the bank collapse so your boat sinks? Lock walls with protruding stones was a recent one. I imagine proving negligence on an extremely aged system that's constantly teetering on the verge of falling to bits could be tricky. It wouldn't be a very sensible litigant who outlined his case on an internet forum so such speculation is unlikely to draw out the OP if he has any sense at all (as it appears) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 It wouldn't be a very sensible litigant who outlined his case on an internet forum so such speculation is unlikely to draw out the OP if he has any sense at all (as it appears) I don't see a problem. If the case is a good one, publishing the bones of it will not make it weaker. CRT have to be given the details of the claim anyway before the OP gets his day in court so outlining what happened here isn't going to damage his case. In addition, Nigel Moore says rehearsing the arguments on here to keep CRT appraised of the case is a Good Thing not something to avoid. (I met a chap last year who told me he was suing CRT. He told me he had fallen into the cut and spent 7 hours trying to get out before anyone found and helped him. He was holding CRT responsible for the distress caused and claiming compensation, he said. I often wonder how he fared.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam & Di Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 (I met a chap last year who told me he was suing CRT. He told me he had fallen into the cut and spent 7 hours trying to get out before anyone found and helped him. He was holding CRT responsible for the distress caused and claiming compensation, he said. I often wonder how he fared.) Perhaps he was told his case was not really Clean Cut enough to win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Perhaps he was told his case was not really Clean Cut enough to win Nice one! Here's your coat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now