Thread: Hit and run driver

My advice would be get a solicitor involved at an early stage.
Many solicitors will work on a no win no fee basis and if you present them with this case I have no doubt that they will be happy to take this on.
If you go to a claims company (despite the claims tout crack not all claims companys are sharks - a few actually do care about their clients) check the ministry of justice website to ensure that they are registered and regulated by them.
If you have personal injury then obviously that will need to be included in any potential claim - do not be tempted to use your own insurers lawyers to process this claim, from experience (and I have plenty) they tend not to be as effective as an independant solicitor with no affiliation to the insurance industry.
Make sure you record details of the accident - time date where what time road conditions etc and take pics of the area if you can - these will all help your case.

Have you had any reply from the police chase it up ask what is happening if the dont come up with a good reply tell them you will right to the chief constable with a view to claiming against the force for failing in there duty
also you maybe able to claim from the motor insurance bureau my wife did when she was hit. But beware they only deal with there own solicitors and get one to act for you
They offered the wife 4000 minus there cost of 1000 they only did 4 letters to her but i was told they all part of same company so its out of one hand and into the other
Regards DK

Have you had any reply from the police chase it up ask what is happening if the dont come up with a good reply tell them you will right to the chief constable with a view to claiming against the force for failing in there duty

I think you will have a very hard job claiming anything against the police - they do not actually have a duty of care (Alexandrou v Oxford) so there can be no negligence.

As I said before - take advice from a good solicitor.

I think you will find i am right it is not a duty of care it is a
DUTY TO INVESTAGE EVERY CRIME THATS REPORTED
he reported a Fail to stop the have a duty to investage that if they failed they they have failed to carry out there duty
i have a friend whos daughter was attacked he was arrested she had a letter of the CPS that they will not be prosecting
WHAT CAN I DO?
told her write to the CPS and ask how come they dropping the case with a lack of evidence when his DNA was on her jumper
THERE REPLY WHAT JUMPER
now the poo has hit the fan because the pc never sent it off never told the CPS and he has failed in his duty to fully investgate a crime
his jobs on the line
now my wifes friend has just settled out of court for the police failing in there duty
the police forces will only leave a case go to court if they are sued if it was a minor thing if it was something like failing to investagate a crime they have then failed in there job to the public (do they really want that in the press) dont think so they will offer to settle on the night before without prejudice
Trust me i took my employer to court for fail in there duty of care
9.15pm night before court they where at my home with a letter and pen for me to sign after 12 months of waiting for it to go to court and what they offered i had to take because me and my family are right for life they also medically pensioned me off i could have only stayed there for 40yrs that would have given me full pension and service they give me 18yrs and now in my 40s i have my pension for life
how many others working elsewhere would get it
i have already signed up with a national newspaper to tell my story but because of tyhe official secrets act i cannot say anything for 10yrs only 4 to go, And no im not in it for money because what im getting for my story 1000s is off to the speacial care baby unit at my local
Regards DK
TRUST ME SPENT 24 YRS WITH A POLICE FORCE

Your employer HAS a duty of care to their employees - so that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion even if your employer was a police force - they still owe you a duty of care as an employee. there is a world of difference.

The police have no duty of care - see the case sited before - also Osman v Fergusson and most recently Smith v Chief constable of Sussex police where the house of Lords ruled there was no duty of care owed to the public during the course of investigating a crime.

Also you would have to admit - the difference in not following up on a minor RTA, and not fully investigating a serious or even sexual assault is fairly profound.

That is not to say that you cannot make a complaint if you are unsatisfied with the polices actions, but as for threatening to sue them for damages - I dont see that as a runner.

Typing in BLOCK CAPITOLS is not likely to intimidate anyone into changing what is a considered and educated opinion.

However - an opinion is all that it is - albeit with the advantage of some legal training and experience.

Should anyone know better I would be very interested in reading the case references that refute my argument.

you state the Smith v Chief constable of Sussex police case he sued stating that they police (Mr Smith would not be able to establish that action on the part of the police would have prevented the attack)
what this RTA is about he reported the crime to the police if they have done nothing about it investagation wise then they have failed to do there job there duty to investgate a crime that makes them liable
If they investgate and find that no crime has been commited then thats it but if they failed in there duty theres a case
i base my opions on experience what smith sued for a told the cops that they guy may attack him and he did but then again he might not have
this CASE is about has the police done anything about the RTA he reported Ie have the been to see the guy who crashed into him if the answer is NO then they can be held liable
Regards DK
this is advise on what i know

You just do not seem to grasp the point which I am trying to make.

1 in order for you to be able to prosecute for negligence you have to show that there was a duty of care in the first place.
2 in both the smith case and the Osman case it was stated that as a matter of policy there could be no duty of care in law.
3 No duty of care - therefore no negligence - therefore no action under the tort of negligence.

The polices failure to investigate a crime may make them liable to disciplinary procedures or censure from the police complaints authority - it does not make them liable under the tort of negligence. It cannot.
Think it through - imagine everyone whose car was stolen, house was burgled, got mugged, attacked, defrauded.....etc

if the police could be sued for negligence each time they didnt investigate any offence fully then the police force would disappear overnight.

Not only that but it would make the police fearful to attend incidents incase they ended up getting sued.

Hence the policy determination that Police do not owe a duty of care...

Read Hill v CC west Yorkshire. This is where the principle was first described. Mr Hill was the father of one of the Y Rippers victims, who tried to sue the police saying that if they had investigated properly his daughter would not have been killed.
This established the precedent regarding duty of care.

Well i suppose you have sued a police force so you must be right??
do you know how many people have sued police forces and had it settled out of court??
do you know why the where sued
let me tell you a case i worked on a guy came home from work
and couldnt park his car in his drive has it was blocked by another car police where called and didnt do anything (other car causing obstruction)
he stated that when his car was not used it was to be parked on the drive, The car was stole insurance refused to pay out has car was not parked on the drive when at home like stated he sued the force for failing to do there job and have a car removed from causing a obstruction
OUTCOME
the force settled out of court all cost
so flying doc maybe you should write to a welsh police force and tell them that you know better than the legal teams they use as they should have had to pay out ME THINK THAT IF THEY WHERE RIGHT AND COULDNT LOSE I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT IT GO TO COURT DONT YOU??

anyway folks ignore my advice as flying doc knows better
and just on a personal note flying i sued the force i worked for, For PTSD after a incident it 3 yrs to go to court they where arguing was a a first or secondary victim and they where relying on 2 other cases
it was due to go to court and the evening before the day they legal team contacted me settled out of court you know why because it would have set a presidence for other cases thats why they settle out of court
and that reason only if they 100% sure they would win they will go for it
between 2001 and 2005 a force settled 278 claims out of court why because they didnt have flyingdoc on there team
Regards DK

Also all the cases you have listed because the failed to prevent a crime
This thread is about failing to investgate a crime total different
take a look at these
Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1242. Further, a police officer may be guilty of a criminal offence if he wilfully fails to perform a duty which he is bound to perform by common law or by statute: see Reg. v. Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722, where a constable was convicted of wilful neglect of duty because, being present at the scene of a violent assault resulting in the death of the victim, he had taken no steps to intervene