can someone give me some advice as I think the legal world is losing the plot. I was involved in a RTA and have had serious injury. I was hit by a lorry, I was in a small car. He was overtaking a parked lorry. To overtake he had to do so on a blind bend and he has said he knew the road well. I also know the road very well and was driving accordingly. This is a B road. Basically I did everything I could to avoid a collision but he did not even attempt to brake, I dont know why. I am still suffering with injury but the solicitors are now saying 70/30. I just dont get it. I wasnt speeding, I was doing half the speed limit on this road. I had my lights on. I really feel strongly that I shouldnt have to settle on 70/30 but am being put in a difficult position by my car insurance lawyers. I have 2 very good witnesses, he has no one supporting him strangely
Its hard when you havent done anything wrong to be told you are negligent by 30%, thats presumably just cos I was there!
any views on this please or am I being daft?
Edited by devonmade on 27/10/2010 at 17:14
|