Should passengers injured in a railway accident seek compensation?

[DarloRich]

The problem is that the way things set up these "lawyers" can make speculative and specious claims at little risk to themselves but in the process cause insurers disproportionately large sums of money to defend, so they will often pay out even on a weak case as it is cheaper.

As a result insurance gets eyewateringly expensive and insurers and public authorities get risk averse to the point of paranoia.

This, not health and safety law, results in most of the petty restrictions that get labelled "Health and Safety Gone Mad"

They aren't "lawyers". They are lawyers. Just because you don't like them doesn't lessen the education and work put in to achieve their qualification and enrolment.

 

[Clip]

They aren't "lawyers". They are lawyers. Just because you don't like them doesn't lessen the education and work put in to achieve their qualification and enrolment.

Just for clarity on this - these law firms are not all stuffed with lawyers. They are call centres with people who are trained to liaise with insurance companies and are not 'lawyers'.

The lawyers do exist for when things get to court but in the case of PI claims it's quite rare as they'll mainly settle the claim before court proceedings are issued.

 

[hwl]

I don't think the broker would hold liability.

Fortis reinsured their risk so "only" paid out £1.5m. A bit of interweb digging says that Munich RE bore the main brunt of the costs shared with another reinsurance company. Railtrack, GENR, Freightliner and the deceased families were all claimants in this legal case. I suspect that the car drivers legal costs were also covered. The final sum was £30m+


Fortis were the insurance company

They don't but it caused them quite few issues as the insurers and underwriters they used had a much better look at the risk associated with their clients and whether the risk was being under priced (they concluded it was)

The final sum was a lot more the £30m+ but it didn't get that much publicity as it happened so long afterwards. One of my post 5+ years ago covers the legal and claims saga afterwards in detail.

 

[DarloRich]

these law firms are not all stuffed with lawyers. They are call centres with people who are trained to liaise with insurance companies and are not 'lawyers'.

Of course - but no one is pretending otherwise. It is the same as conveyancing factories pushed by builders and estate agents.

But that doesn't remove the fact that the target audience for these companies is the lower end of the economic ladder and without them it is much harder for people to enforce their rights. It isn't perfect but I would prefer people to have access to justice rather than only have access to justice if they have means.

The final sum was a lot more the £30m+ but it didn't get that much publicity as it happened so long afterwards. One of my post 5+ years ago covers the legal and claims saga afterwards in detail.

I remember reading a briefing on it many years after the event. I cant find it now sadly.

 

[TUC]

I'm puzzled by the question. There does seem to be this odd notion that pops up in different settings, not just the railway, that the position for public services (even taking rail's present confused public/private status into account) in terms of liability for compensation should somehow be less than if an accident was caused by a private business or a car driver. Why on earth should that be? It's just a different owner.

 

[hwl]

I remember reading a briefing on it many years after the event. I cant find it now sadly.

Lots of the material seems to have been lost in recent years.

 

[ExRes]

I'm puzzled by the question. There does seem to be this odd notion that pops up in different settings, not just the railway, that the position for public services (even taking rail's present confused public/private status into account) in terms of liability for compensation should somehow be less than if an accident was caused by a private business or a car driver. Why on earth should that be? It's just a different owner.

Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one that thought this thread a little strange, in the compensation culture that we live in why should the railway be considered the slightest bit different to any other area?

 

[Clip]

Of course - but no one is pretending otherwise. It is the same as conveyancing factories pushed by builders and estate agents.

But that doesn't remove the fact that the target audience for these companies is the lower end of the economic ladder and without them it is much harder for people to enforce their rights. It isn't perfect but I would prefer people to have access to justice rather than only have access to justice if they have means.

Oh I agree with you but thought a bit of clarity was needed for some posters who apparently think otherwise.

And yes these companies exist because it does give people access to justice that wouldn't have been available otherwise.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Should passengers injured in a railway accident seek compensation?

The financial consequences of compensation payments are one reason the safety of our railway system has improved. If you reduce compensation levels to "give them the price of their ticket and sausage roll" there's no financial incentive to keep passengers reasonably safe.

The threat of being stripped naked in court should your company, or indeed you, as an individual, do something that causes injury or loss of life rather focuses a few minds on making sure more than just lip service is paid to health and safety.

It's one area I worry that there's not enough incentive for Network Rail or a reborn British Rail. What the good Lord taketh on one hand, the Treasury and DfT will returneth on the other. I think that's reflected in staff injuries on the NR side of the network, though there's equally a cavalier attitude to safety amongst many on track personnel which doesn't help at all either.

 

[peters]

I'm puzzled by the question. There does seem to be this odd notion that pops up in different settings, not just the railway, that the position for public services (even taking rail's present confused public/private status into account) in terms of liability for compensation should somehow be less than if an accident was caused by a private business or a car driver. Why on earth should that be? It's just a different owner.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you implying a car driver wouldn't have to compensate the owner of another vehicle if he or she crashed in to it? They certainly would and in many cases solicitors will try to get as much as possible from the offending party.

Or are you implying that a car passenger wouldn't sue a family member or friend who was driving them? If that's what you're implying then I'm not sure how you would ensure passengers are only driven by train drivers who they are happy to drive them.

 

[PG]

Someone up-thread mentions that it was NFU Mutual that were the insurers.
My landlord (at a storage shed) had buildings insured with them. A lot of wet snow fell, and the result was a roof sagged under the weight. He claimed, and was given two options 1) withdraw the claim, and we'll continue to insure you or 2) claim, and we'll refuse to insure you.
Option 1 means that insuring is a waste of money, option 2 would create difficulties (have you ever had insurance declined?) to find an alternative.
So they've learned how to minimise claims...

While I (reluctantly) accept option 2, I'm dubious that option 1 is an unfair term legally. Either way it makes insuring seem pointless.

True. Although, I would hope very few people know someone who has been involved in a train accident and can recommend a solicitor who is good at dealing with these kind of claims. Lots of people can recommend a good plumber as every home owner will need one at some point. I also would presume that the solicitor wants as many people from the train as possible to be part of the claim because part of the work will only have to be done once, how ever many people claim.

One wonders what experience of dealing with train crashes this firm has (probably most PI firms) since the numbers of such incidents in the UK are very low, unlike motor vehicle crashes.

Well, I guess we'll just have to differ in our opinions of ambulance-chasing law firms. I have my own view ...

The trouble with ambulance chasers is they will hound other involved parties (who for whatever reason may not wish to be part of a claim) and attempt to guilt trip them into joining the claim to boost their chances of a successful award.

 

[TUC]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you implying a car driver wouldn't have to compensate the owner of another vehicle if he or she crashed in to it? They certainly would and in many cases solicitors will try to get as much as possible from the offending party.

Or are you implying that a car passenger wouldn't sue a family member or friend who was driving them? If that's what you're implying then I'm not sure how you would ensure passengers are only driven by train drivers who they are happy to drive them.

I'm not implying any of those things.

What on earth has a train driver being 'happy' to drive someone got to do with the issue?

 

[bb21]

I think we have been digressing for pretty much the last half of the thread. I think the OP's question has been suitably answered, and I don't think many people would consider it unreasonable for compensation to be paid by the party at fault or guilty of negligence, whoever that may be, or indeed if any.

I am reluctantly locking this thread unless anyone has anything substantial to add.