On 20/3/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >Well, yes, I suppose so ... but y'know, I'm not even thinking about that >right now. Anyway, apart from the loss of an old car and some out of >pocket expenses, what "substantial" damages are there?
My wife was waiting to turn right (equivalent your left) across oncoming traffic at a junction and a truck hit her from behind. The car was written off (although the damage appeared not too bad, it was economically unrepairable). Days later she had a very sore neck for nearly a month, and was jittery about driving again for a couple of weeks. The truck driver's insurers admitted liability, and we got a fair price for the vehicle. My wife had chiropractic treatment for a couple of months, which the insurance paid for, and a claim was made for 'damages' and paid - about £2,500 GBP. The 'damages' are offered as compensation for time and trouble, not to mention the traumatic episode of the actual collision. It's part of why we are supposed to be insured when driving. Through no fault of my wife's, she was heavily inconvenienced and mildly injured. Why should she just 'shoulder the cost' ? And neither should you. I'm not saying start walking with a limp and put a collar around your neck, I'm saying there is a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to be claimed because you were just going about your business and someone else who was clearly at fault, caused you some pain and suffering (no matter how small) and certainly inconvenience. If you don't claim, all you are doing is allowing the insurance company to retain an even bigger profit for the year as the millions it has in the bank attract staggering interest daily. I would have thought that in the litigation-ridden north American society that you live in, it was de riguer for auto accident compensation claims to be doles out like corn dogs at the big game! Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
