On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:42:30 +0000, Jeffry wrote:
>
> "Heretic" wrote in message
> news:40cchoF199r15U1@individual.net...
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:51:15 +0000, Jeffry wrote:
>>
>>> Would this case have essentially been between the drunk's health insurer
>>> and the government compulsory personal injury insurance thing (whatever
>>> it is called - 'nominal defendant')?
>>
>> It seems to be between the truck driver (ie his insurer, as usual) and the
>> drunk.
>
>
> Why wouldn't it be the Compulsory Govt Insurer defending the claim?
In the usual case, where the driver is properly insured, the driver's
insurer runs the case under the name of the driver ie in this situation,
conducts the defence.
In the less usual case, where the driver is not properly insured, a
statutory scheme involving the Nominal Defendant is triggered, and
the Nominal Defendant conducts the defence.
You can tell which kind of situation this is by the names - here,
the defendant is the driver, not the Nominal Defendant, so it's the
usual case.
The drunk was either running the case himself, or with some financial
help from family/friends, or the lawyers were doing it pro bono, or on
the basis of a cut if they win/nothing if they lose (ie the ambulance
chaser situation), or legal aid was involved (unlikely, because the
plaintiff was clearly stupid, but that's not unusual with legal aid). |