Ms BH was attending upon a shopping centre in Ryde. The area that she wanted to access was off a narrow laneway. In her path blocking the driveway of where she wanted to go was an 18 tonne truck. Ms BH exited her car to find the driver of the truck to request that he move from the driveway. She found the driver and the driver proceeded to return to his truck to move it forward to allow Ms BH to enter into the driveway that she wanted to go into. As the truck moved forward, Ms BH took 2 steps back that was then suddenly struck by the mirror of a white van. This caused her to be knocked over.
Damage was caused to the front left arm of her leather coat verifying the position where the mirror had struck her. What ensued thereafter was a heated argument which involved many bystanders.
The driver who hit BH proceeded immediately to the Police Station to provide a statement of her version of events. The version that was immediately provided was that she had reversed into BH. Approximately one month later after a claim for personal injuries was made, the offending driver returned to the Police Station to make a different statement.
Liability in this matter was denied and only offers of a verdict for the defendant was received.
What was later received was a statement from an independent witness, namely the truck driver. This statement provided information that his truck was large and 18 tonnes in weight. That there were a lot of people around including children. A quick Google search of the laneway revealed the laneway to be extremely narrow.
Through the ingenuity of the solicitors at Gerard Malouf and Partners it was submitted to the insurer’s representative that the laneway was narrow, the truck was large and 18 tonnes and therefore, obscured a lot of view. The area had a lot of people including children as per the witness statement.
It was therefore put to the insurer that the driver of the van had failed to travel at a speed required of her travelling through a narrow laneway passing a large vehicle which would obscure vision, in a shopping area containing a lot of people including children and therefore, she was not travelling at a speed consistent with the circumstances. Further, it was submitted that she failed to keep a proper lookout, particularly in an area where there were a lot of pedestrians which included children. Although the injuries sustained by BH were minor, and a significant contribution to negligence need to be accepted, the matter was still able to be resolved in an amount greater than $25,000.00.
Such a result was only able to be made through the dedication and ingenuity displayed by Gerard Malouf and Partners accident compensation solicitors.
