Pillion rider's claim for compensation turned down

Joseph Vassallo

Oct 20th 2010, 19:05

I don't know if Messrs Zammit and Maurin read the official sentence, but they should be aware that the judge commented that (my translation) "UNFORTUNATELY, the appointed expert Joseph Zammit, did not, at the time, think he needed to verify whether the Subaru had been hit by the Renault or the motorcycle, although , in the circumstances, this factor would have established how the accident had occurred." (end translation).

This might not have been a criticism but I perceive a lamentation that he had not been furnished with all the important information. In the circumstances, His Honour decided that the surviving victim had not proved her case to his satisfaction.

About that all-important/unimportant mirror.... A mirror stand is usually made of antimony which is a brittle alloy designed to break clean on impact. If the Renault was taking belated evasive action it would have been angled towards the littoral side and the mirror would have been deflected in that direction, which I presume is why it was found there.

Mr Phil Zammit should also bear in mind that hot air is well known to lift heavy balloons high up into the sky.

Joseph Vassallo

Oct 20th 2010, 17:49

Continuing

Now if you can set my mind at rest about this testimony that was not accepted by the court and perhaps explain to me how a piece of ordinary debris becomes "the FIRST piece of debris" that sways a court decision (presumably expert-advice again), I will accept your criticism. Is it right to reason that because a jogger was found dead in a field after being hit by a car, then he was hit while he was in that field?

What hit the Subaru is relevant only if that collision occurred before the impact with the Renault. The deceased was on a motorcycle and that can be thrown in any direction by the impact, especially since the other vehicle was travelling with velocity given that it overshot onto oncoming traffic while overtaking other vehicles (how many?).

Joseph Vassallo

Oct 20th 2010, 17:46

With respect to Messrs Maurin and Zammit, can you mitigate the fact that "a number of eye-witnesses testified" yet the court was advised (presumably) by a court expert to go against that sworn evidence.

Two blood samples are normally taken from a suspected influenced driver one of which is retained in case there is contention as to contamination; the retained sample is sealed and signed by the donor, which can't have happened in this case because the donor was dead.

Hot air it may well be, but if ever I become a victim of some irresponsible driver doing ill-advised overtaking manoeuvres, I want to know that I will not be blamed for the accident just because I am the one who ended up dead. Unfortunately, human error is far too often attributed to deceased victims be they car drivers or aviators. Dead men tell no tales.

Continued

R.Maurin

Oct 20th 2010, 15:20

Hellow above blogers.the Judge found that the driver of the subaru originally said 'that his car was hit by a motorcycle not the RENAULT'. Please don't twist hard facts, and cast doubts.

Phil Zammit

Oct 20th 2010, 05:51

With great respect and compassion, my heart goes out to the injured young lady and the bereaved family.
Without taking anything away from this tragedy, I have seen this scenario repeated endless times. Couch judges who, by reading a blurb in the paper or a 20 second report on TV, know better than the judge what the verdict should be!!

Here's a professional, who hears all the testimony, reads all the reports, has access to all the data, counsel and deliberations, and YOU know better then him what the verdict should be?!? Talk about presumptiousness and hot air by the previous two comments!!!

martin saliba

Oct 19th 2010, 18:24

"Furthermore, while the vehicles had ended up in the lane used by the motorcycle, the first piece of debris, a mirror from the motorcycle, was on the other side, on the lane used by the Renault. " What dose the coutr expect ?? Ive seen debris after an accident that ended up more than 100 meters from the accident. Dose this mean that the accident happened 100 meters away? Sometimes i wonder how in hell did these people become court officals . This lady should appeal and hope that the next court official has some kind of knowledge with regard to dynamics of an accident.

Joseph Vassallo

Oct 19th 2010, 18:04

Something sounds amiss here.

A NUMBER of eye-witnesses stated that the Renault had driven into the contraflow in an overtaking manoeuvre and caused the accident. Yet the court "felt" differently despite this evidence given under oath.

The fact that the cycle mirror was found in the opposite lane is unimportant because momentum could have carried it anywhere. Anyway, what determines that the mirror was "the first piece of debris"?

How does the cyclist's alcohol-level determine the outcome of his passenger's claim? Was she aware of his condition and if so, does she still have recourse against his insurer? In any case, what assurance does the court have that the blood-sample from the deceased was not contaminated given that he was dead and did not attest to the provenance of the sample? Who took the sample and under whose independent supervision?

Eye-witnesses swore that the errant driver of the Renault caused the accident. Claimant now has a 16% disability for the rest of her life and is entitled to redress.

Are these court experts for real?