Following on from my last post, where I mused about various client types, one thing that sticks out is the number of them who think that being hurt automatically entitles them to compensation. I blame the adverts. You know the ones I mean. They're the ones that people quote back to me, in a bemusingly smug manner, whenever I tell them that I'm a trainee in a personal injury team.
Anyway, I got a new client call the other day from someone who was walking (running) down some stairs and fell. I asked him if there was anything wrong with the stairs - any obstacles or any slipping hazards - and he said "no, no... I was just being a bit clumsy to be honest. Just thought I'd call up and see if I could get anything". Fair play to the guy, I suppose. If it's available then why not take it?
I'd like to dispel a myth: most of the time when one of our clients gets compensation, it's very much deserved and fully justified. In order to win a case we do need to show that there was someone at fault, and not just a minor fault, but actually negligent. This is the part that they don't really get across on those silly TV adverts (although they do seem to bring in a lot of new clients which I guess is the point...) - having an accident is not in itself enough to get money! Sometimes life is just unfair.
It's fine when, as in the previous example, the client understands and accepts this, but sometimes they really don't and are adamant that someone other than themselves must be to blame. And then, after explaining that it's not that easy to get compensation, they'll have a go at me. And after work I'll be in a bar having a quiet drink alone, doing my crosswords as I do every night, and someone will do their silly mocking impression from the TV adverts because they think that I'm an ambulance chaser who'll stop at no lengths to find a way to blame the blameless. That's not how it is! Bah.
Another thing people seem to forget is that when someone's suffered a proper injury (which our clients have to - we make them see an independent medical expert to verify their injury) they will have suffered genuine losses and will really need the money. That's why it's called "compensation", to compensate them for what they have lost. If they haven't lost anything then they won't get any compensation. People don't realise this either. Just to clarify - loss of health/amenity does count as a compensationable loss, but it has to be quite significant for it to be worth a lawsuit.
I was going to mention some of the interesting things I did since my last update, but I've forgotten most of it now. Oops. One thing that I think is worth mentioning is that I went to a trial the other week (pretty rare in personal injury!) and the defendant had fired his lawyers and was representing himself. It was pretty interesting watching him compared to our educated, qualified & experienced barrister. A bit of a no-contest in the end.
My hands are tired now.
No comments:
Post a Comment