Food For Thought: Road Traffic Bonanza

So I was on my way home from work last night and was crossing the dreaded Archers Road/ Hill Lane Junction when I was hit by a bicycle.

It kind of went like this:

‘Yes, dad, yes, I’m ok, yes, fine, fine….’

WHAM!

‘Dad, give me a second, will you, just got hit by a bike and am currently flat- faced on the road…’

At which point my father started laughing and hung up.

But let us imagine a different and less embarrassing scenario. Say I was in a car, an Audi R8, and I went into the side of another car, say, a Mercedes Benz, only because I hated the colour (ochre…).

We exchange details and it so happens that we have got the same insurers, Blah LTD (‘Blah’).

The guy with the ochre Benz (‘the Claimant’) claims that I have broken his pinkie in five places and have caused him severe whiplash to the neck, shoulders and ears.

To which I (‘the Defendant’) simply say, ‘That’s what you get for driving an ochre Benz, mate!’

No, but seriously. So I accept liability and have to pay out.

Because of a conflict interest, Blah instructs firm A to act for the Defendant and firm B to act for the Claimant.

Matter is resolved in a matter of months and the Claimant gets a pay out of £ 1000.00 whilst my premium goes up by £ 100 p/m.

This will potentially mean that Blah will get their money back in ten months.

Now, here comes the kahuna wave:

A solicitor must act in the best interests of his client.

Therefore, firm B should want to get more for the Claimant and firm A should want the Defendant to pay less.

Hypothetically, that is.

The question arises, however, as both firms A and B are on Blah’s panel, whose best interest are they acting in?

Still, many a commentators find the abovementioned quite irrelevant and speculative.

Ah, well…

To Hell With It!