[Dorrin79]

Man loses wife to negligent driver, gets sued for trauma by driver:

A former policeman who sued a widower because he experienced the trauma of seeing the man's wife die in a crash with his speeding patrol car has won £87,275 damages.

George Gilfillan was awarded the money even though a judge ruled that he was driving "much too fast" and said that he was 50 per cent to blame.

Link (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/13/nwido13.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/13/ixhome.html)

I can't even imagine how the poor widower must feel at this point.

:cuss: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[agricola]

that does seem particularly bad, but be aware that in all probability that report does not contain the facts that led the Court to award damages of that scale and ratio against the widower.

besides, it is proper that a driver should be aware of road users, especially road users with blue lights flashing and a siren going following a vehicle failing to stop.

[Dorrin79]

besides, it is proper that a driver should be aware of road users, especially road users with blue lights flashing and a siren going following a vehicle failing to stop.

I can't believe you're defending this.

While I would be willing to accept that the police officer is not liable for the woman's death (he was in pursuit of a criminal etc.) the idea that the widower is liable to the officer for the officer's killing of his wife...

I can't even understand it. It's so incredibly wrong.

[agricola]

dorrin,

which is why you should seek the rest of the information that the Court based its decision on.

[longeyes]

And you'll find that information in the Chronicles of IngSoc
under Through-the-Looking Glass Crimes.

[longeyes]

But more and more it appears that the U.K. is suffering from
mass post-traumatic stress syndrome. I don't know what else
could explain some of what seems to be going on Over There.

[atk]

I would like to see the additional evidence that this decision was based on. Where can I obtain a copy of the court transcript, and pictures of all evidence?

[HBK]

I can't believe this actually happenned. Something's rotten in the state of Great Britain. I can't even remotely imagine circumstances that would dictate the officer is entitled to damages from the widower for killing the man's wife. Freaking ridiculous. If any of you find out the "evidence" :rolleyes: that led to this decision, please enlighten the rest of us. This has to fall into the category of WRONG/EVIL.:fire:

[agricola]

atk,

proceedings from the Court and copies of the judgement should be available from the Court concerned.

[KC]

"I can't believe you're defending this."

Why? Consider what the man does for a living, and remember what people in the same profession here in the US tend to do when one of their own does something bugf*** stupid or careless, or makes a simple mistake.

[atk]

Thanks. As I am not at all familiar with the British court system, could you hlep me to locate the court?

From the article, it appears that it's the "Court of Session in Edinburgh", the judge was Lord Reed, the man was Alexander Barbour, and the police officer was George Gillifan. Is this sufficient information by which to find the actual court?

Do you have any recommendation as to where I can go to contact the court system (i.e. URL to the British court system)? I would much prefer to have dealings via the Internet than the phone or mail, as phone may get expensive, and mail could be very slow.

Thanks,
atk

[agricola]

atk,

i doubt it would be on the net. however the case will be Gillifan vs Barbour at the Edinburgh Court of Sessions on the date concerned. Snail-mail is probably the best bet - if you can get in touch via email, explain your interest in the case (they'll usually most help researchers, students or journalists) and they should be able to explain how they can help.

here is probably the best place to start:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/index1.asp

[Cosmoline]

Agricola, bless him, defends everything British no matter how hopeless the cause. If only he could apply some of this stubborn attitude toward defending the RKBA, he might be able to own a firearm instead of just discuss them.

[agricola]

cosmoline,

no, i just point out the obvious flaws in the articles that get posted up here, and that many of the prevailing opinions here are clearly wrong.

its clear from reading that article that all of the reasons why the ex-policeman was awarded damages have been left out, and its best not to comment until one is in full possession of the facts or you come across sounding stupid when the facts come out.

[Sergeant Bob]

Glasgow Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13287180_method=full_siteid=89488_headline=---xA3-87K-FOR-COP-BUT-JUST---xA3-16K-FOR-CRASH-WIDOWER-name_page.html)



A TRAFFIC cop involved in a death smash after driving at speed through a red light has been given five times as much compensation as the victim's husband.

The court heard he had witnessed the attempts to save the life of the 55-year-old doctor's receptionist and had later suffered from extreme anxiety, flashbacks, feelings of guilt and nightmares.

He also suffered neck, chest and back injuries and had to wear a neck collar for about six weeks.

Mr Barbour, 64, of Glen Lyon, East Kilbride, suffered fractured ribs and also experienced flashbacks.



Police driver gets £87,275 for death crash trauma (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/scotland.cfm?id=885512003)

Mr Barbour was driving the couple’s Fiat Punto and his wife was in the front passenger seat. As they approached a junction in Gallowgate, intending to turn right, he heard the siren of a police car but could not tell from which direction it was coming. His view of Gallowgate beyond the junction was restricted by other vehicles.


Mr Gilfillan, of Glasgow, escaped serious physical injury, but developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court was told that he was plagued by flashbacks, and had difficulty sleeping. He had changed from a friendly, easy-going and sociable person, to someone prone to bouts of anger. In early 2001, he was retired on medical grounds from the police.

[Bruce H]

Leave the widower alone to grieve. Put the judge and the ex policeman in a hole. Cover with dirt. Oh yeah, if there were barristers or lawyers involved them too. Welcome to the brave new world without responsibilities, but full of retribution.

[atk]

Thanks for the info. I've followed the link you provided, and I believe that I will be able to contact the court directly, now. However, taking the court's opinion at face value, there are some interesting tidbits, which I've highlighted, below.

Interestingly, I found a court opinion on the case, at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/index1.asp , if anyone wants to read it :) I reccommend that you do, as I've only shown the snippets that I think are important...



From the court's opinion...


When the case came before me for proof, it was admitted on behalf of the defender that his driving had been negligent. No such admission was made on behalf of the pursuer. The value of their respective claims, if liability were established without any deduction for contributory negligence, was also agreed: the pursuer's claim was valued at £174,550 and the defender's at £32,000. The issues for determination were therefore:

(1) had the pursuer's driving been negligent; and, if so,

(2) to what extent should the damages recoverable by each party be reduced on account of contributory negligence.



They were not chasing the vehicle. They were trying to find it. They were hoping to catch up with it.



After viewing the video recording, the pursuer agreed that if he had been travelling within the speed limit when he moved to the nearside lane, he would have been able to stop in time to avoid the accident.



The average speed over the last 25 metres before the Stop line was calculated as being at least 60mph. The fact that the two calculated speeds were so close to each other implied that there had been no significant variation in speed over the last 50.9 metres. At the point when the police car passed the Stop line, the video image showed that the defender's car had already turned in front of it, and the collision was inevitable.



If he had waited at the junction, the police car would have been able to pass him safely, wherever it was coming from.



It is not in dispute that the defender was in breach of the duty of care which he owed towards the pursuer, and that that breach contributed to the accident. In considering the nature of his breach of duty, it is appropriate to have regard to the Highway Code, in accordance with section 38(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

"(7) A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code... may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal...) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."

The 1999 edition of the Highway Code, which was the edition current at the date of the accident, contains the following rule concerning emergency vehicles:

"194. Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users."

Rule 157 of the Code also states that extra care should be taken when turning to the right in front of another vehicle also turning right, since the latter vehicle may block the driver's view of oncoming vehicles.



On the facts of the present case, I am prepared to infer that obedience to the speed limit would have been likely to hinder the use of the police car for the purpose for which it was being used on the occasion when the accident occurred: the pursuer and PC Rodger were attempting to catch up with, and intercept, the Jaguar-type vehicle; and they were more likely to succeed in that objective if they exceeded the speed limit than if they obeyed it. I therefore do not draw any inference of negligence merely from the fact that the pursuer was driving in excess of the speed limit.



40. In the circumstances of the present case, I find it impossible to attempt any mathematical computation. The defender was inattentive in failing to see the police car before it approached the junction, and he was unwise in attempting to cross the junction when he knew an emergency vehicle was approaching, somewhere in the vicinity; but his driving was otherwise cautious, and if the police car had been travelling more slowly, a collision could have been avoided or would at least have had less serious consequences. The pursuer was driving much too fast in the circumstances, as it seems to me, and it was his speed and the weight of his vehicle which caused the accident to have such serious consequences; at the same time, some allowance has to be made for the fact that in driving at speed he was attempting to fulfil his responsibilities as a police officer. Looking at the matter broadly, I see little to choose between the parties overall, and I shall therefore apportion responsibility equally between them


41. I shall therefore award the pursuer 50 per cent of the agreed damages in the principal action: namely, the sum of £87,275. I shall award the defender 50 per cent of the agreed damages in the counterclaim: namely, the sum of £16,000.

[atk]

Now, based on all my post above (and having read most of the court's opinion (I skimmed over sections 23 through 39, as I got bored by then :rolleyes: , and they were all about precedent), the judge assigned 50% of the blame to each side, and so gave each 50% of their claims. The defendant (the guy whose wife died) simply claimed far less than the police officer.

Now, I'm not defending this decision, and I haven't thought it over yet. Oughtright, I sorta feel that if both were equally at fault, then, yeah, they should both pay equally. But, at the same time, didn't the guy already pay with his wife's death? And doesn't a police officer already recognize that s/he may see some gruesome stuff when they take the job (isn't it in the job description)?

I need more time to think about the facts of the case :)

[atk]

Now that I've finally had some time to think about it, I've formed some opinions on this case:

1) I belive that the judge was correct to assign 50% blame to each party. It seems to make sense: the police officer was going too fast, and the guy at the intersection should have waited until he could actually see down the street and be sure it was safe.

2) Based on the 50% blame, it is easy to assign 50% losses to each party. At first, this seems completely reasonable. Unfortunately, I saw nothing proving what the losses were. This may be caused by omission from the opinion, or omission from the case. Either way, it makes me wonder...

What evidence was there that the police officer had incurred L160,000 worth damages? (sorry about the L for pounds - I dunno the right character...).

What evidence was there that the man had incurred L30,000 damages?

I. Finding the answers would require reading the court papers, motions, transcripts, etc. That's a lot of work, and I'm not completely sure I want to go through with it. I'm also not sure the court would be willing to send all that information overseas for free, and it might cost me a bit of money to get it all.

II. Without further evidence, and assuming the man loved his wife, it would be fair to say he incurred far more damages than the police officer - he lost his wife!

III. Seeing grizzly sights is part of the police officer's job, and should be handled through compensation by his/her employer (through the police department). Any mental damages caused by these grizzly sights should, in general, be handled by the police department.

If an individual is convicted of a crime, s/he should pay restitution to the police department for the damages s/he causes individual officers; s/he should also pay restitution to the victim(s) (but, that's a civil matter, right?); s/he should also pay restitution to society.

In this case, the man was not convicted of a crime (as far as I know), and appears to have recieved greater loss than the police officer. I do not believe that the decision was just, although I still don't have all the evidence.

--
atk

[priv8ter]

I'll admit flat out, I don't know the laws in England. Even reading the courts opinion, my own opinion is the police officer doesn't deserve a red cent. What if I both people in the other car had died? Would he have sued the estate of the deceased?

And...this award of money...is that from the government, or am I correct in assuming that the gentleman who's wife died, foots that bill. In essence, paying this ex-cop somethng on the order of $150,000 FOR KILLING HIS WIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No...I am sorry...I can see no one doing time in jail for this because of shared responsibility...but not a cash reward. Hell, if I was a cop in Britiain, I could become quite the hit man in fashion, running over poor defenceless women, and then sueing their husbands.

Just plain WRONG.

And call my stubborn, but I don't think there is any fact someone can produce that will change my mind.

greg

[Nightfall]

:barf:

[seeker_two]

Husband doesn't locate where sirens are coming from, turns in front of officer....

Officer can't avoid hitting car...

Husband loses wife....

Officer loses a few nights' sleep...

Judge should have called it even....


...but one does not hinder the State or it's officials, so someone must pay...


Welcome to the British Police State--where civilians can lose all & the police can't be inconvenienced w/ nightmares... :fire:

(And before anyone says it, BTDT...)

[Futo Inu]

Look, folks, it seems weird until you know the law of comparative negligence. It's the correct result ***IF*** you agree with the findings by the court of (a) the apportionment of comparative negligence, and (b) the amount of the damages of the respective parties:

1. Driver A (cop) sues Driver B (middle-aged man), claiming negligence ("you caused the car accident, and I'm injured as a result, and damaged to the tune of $x").

2. Driver B countersues driver A, claiming negligence ("no, YOU caused the car accident, and I'm injured as a result, and damaged even more than you, to the tune of $y - after all, I lost my WIFE!)

3. Court hears the evidence and decides whose the most at fault, in terms of 0-100% negligence. Here, the court found 50% / 50% by each party (to which you may legitimately have a beef - it can and should be argued, but the court heard all the evidence and that's what it decided).

4. The Court determines how much each party is damaged, based on the law of what types of damages are compensable in that jurisdiction. Ordinarily, pain and suffering type of compensatory damages are awardable as "attachable" to a physical injury claim, if and only if a physical injury was indeed suffered. Here, it appears that both parties suffered physical injury, and both parties are suffering some type of PTSD. Now, where I have a problem is in the AMOUNTs of the damages found by the court. I don't see how the court found that the cop was damaged 174,550 pounds (twice the 87K), whereas the man who lost his wife, for cryin out loud, only was found to have been damaged 32,000 pounds (twice the 16K).

5. In any event, once the amounts of the damages has been established, for the claim and counterclaim, then the amounts of the AWARD are calculated as the damage of the claimant, muliplied times the percentage of comparative negligence apportioned to the opposing party. Here, 50% is 87K to the cop from the man, and 16K to the man from the cop, which would result in a net court order of the difference, or 71K pounds to the cop. Again, this makes sense IF you agree with the amounts of the damages. It doesn't make sense to me, since the wrongful death portion of the man's claim would lead to much, much higher damages in the United States anyway, which would result in a net large amount to the man, not vice versa, after setting off the cop's claim agains the man's claim. Perhaps there is some exclusion or cap on damages for wrongful death in the UK. In the US, this might have been an 87K damage to the cop, and a 3 million damage award to the man, resulting in a net $2,913,000 award to the man, since the physical injuries and even the PTSD/P&S claims would pale in comparison to the wrongful death (which includes loss of consortium, etc.). So I dunno how they calculated damages, but the result is right IF you agree with the damage analysis and the negligence apportionment -big ifs, of course.