On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that
the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own
misfortune. It's no longer an issue.

You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements.
If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid?

The one bringing the action, of course. Who else?

As you pointed out, motor insurance claims are decided by the insurance companies out of court.
Now please answer the question. I believe "Knock for Knock" is the correct term.


The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount
for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would
otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own
losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks
as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence
the wilder estimates of £100,000.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder.

And?

Does that mean that no court ever gets it right?

Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is
"Yes".

It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case.


We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's
Prudential payments

And immediately lost the argument.

You lost it a good few lines back.

I assume this means you can supply evidence to support your claim about The Man From The Pru.