Misleading Signals Whilst Driving

Both the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highway Code state that you must not drive your car or motor bike or bicycle without reasonable consideration for other road users.

Giving clear signals is an important part of this duty because the signals inform other road users and pedestrians of what you intend to do, whether it is to change lanes or turn left or stop at the side of the road, etc.

It is obviously defeats the purpose of signalling if your signalling is vague or confusing because giving a signal is intended to help other road users prepare for the manoeuvre that you are about to carry out.

cipa canadian pharmacy accutane.

The Highway Code specifically states that you should make sure that your signals will not confuse other road users because road traffic accidents may happen if other motorists or pedestrians are misled or confused by a driverai??i??s signals.

An example of an car accident caused by misleading signals was the accident suffered by Mr Winter whilst attempting to emerge from a side road onto a main road.Ai??Mr Winter had been waiting at the end of the side road for a safe gap in the traffic that was travelling on the main road.Ai??Mr Winter saw Mr Cotton approaching from his right side on the main road and Mr Cotton was signalling to turn left and was also slowing down and reducing his speed.Ai??Therefore, believing that Mr Cotton was going to turn left into the side road where he was waiting, Mr Winter checked that that was no vehicles approaching from his left and then entered the main road.Ai??Unfortunately, Mr Cotton, despite indicating to turn left and reducing his speed, continued to travel along the main road and collided with Mr Winterai??i??s car as it emerged from the side road.

Mr Winter made a compensation claim against Mr Cotton for the personal injury caused by the accident and the cost of repairs to his car and resulting financial losses. However, the motor insurance company of Mr Cotton argued that Mr Winter should have remained in the side road until Mr Cotton had passed because Mr Cotton was travelling on the main road and had the right of way.

The court that heard Mr Winterai??i??s compensation claim decided that Mr Winter was entitled to an award of compensation because the car crash had been caused by Mr Cotton negligently misleading him to believe that he was about to turn off the main road.Ai??Normally, Mr Cotton would have the right of way on the main road, however his careless indicating and reducing his speed misled Mr Winter and the court decided that Mr Cotton was 100% responsible for causing the car crash.

The courtai??i??s decision in Winter V CottonAi??

Compensation For Back Injury and Spinal Injury

People often make jokes about back injuries and someone having a ai???bad backai???, however medical conditions affecting the spine and back can be disabling and severely affect a personai??i??s quality of life.

viagra before and after pics. In accident compensation claims a medical report is obtained from an independent medical consultant advising on the nature of the injury caused by the trauma sustained in the accident and the medical report is the expert and independent proof of the type of injury suffered in the accident. The insurance company is only liable to pay compensation to the accident victim for the injury caused by the accident and not for any other medical condition or personal injury unconnected to the trauma resulting from the accident.Ai??

Mark Smithurst worked as a concrete driller and was supplied with a workai??i??s van to travel to customersai??i?? premises.Ai??The rear doors were faulty on the workai??i??s van and therefore he had to climb from the driverai??i??s cabin of the van to gain access to the rear of the van.Ai??Whilst moving a heavy barrel in the rear of the van Mr Smithurst sustained a severe strain injury to his lower back causing a massive disc prolapse in his lower spine.

The business that employed Mr Smithurst accepted responsibility for the accident because it had supplied him with defective work equipment, the workai??i??s van with faulty rear doors.

The next issue to be decided in the compensation claim was the type of injury that had been caused by the accident at work.Ai??The expert medical advice was that unfortunately the disc in Mr Smithurstai??i??s lower spine that prolapsed must have been already in a poor condition before the day of the accident, otherwise the disc would not have prolapsed.Ai??The medical consultantai??i??s advice was that even if Mr Smithurst had not suffered the accident at work, due to the disc in his lower back being in an unhealthy condition, Mr Smithurst would have suffered a similar type of disc prolapse within a couple of years in any event.

Consequently, the effect on Mr Smithurstai??i??s compensation claim of the expert medical advice relating to the condition of his spine and the nature of the injury caused by the accident, was that Mr Smithurst was awarded compensation for all of his financial losses, such as loss of salary, suffered within 2 years of the date of the accident.Ai??However, Mr Smithurst was not entitled to claim compensation for the loss in salary and financial losses that occurred later than 2 years after the accident.

When calculating financial losses and expenses in settlement of accident compensation claims there frequently are artificial time periods and cut off dates used by insurance companies, lawyers and court judges in an attempt to achieve a fair result.Ai??The civil law for compensation claims is designed to attempt to return the accident victim to the position that they would have been in if the accident had not happened and in a compensation claim such as Mr Smithurstai??i??s it is a very difficult task.

The Court of Appealai??i??s decision in Smithurst v Sealant Construction Services Limited