Can I sue?

[Lounge Lizard]

he he he ...You guys are so gullible - Does that really look as if its "next to" the road ? Could anybody have a claim for riding somewhere off road or "next to the road" ...nogal from the "Road" Accident fund - Have you heard of the "Next to the Road Fund" ? Don't you think it's a bit of a strange post/question.

Nice one.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Lounge Lizard

[Kranswurm]

Cant understand why you did not jump it

At 35km/hr you would have flown over it.

Stay off the brakes

[Tumbleweed]

Its looks like a natural occurance, water or just plain soil erosion and not anything man made.

 

I doubt you will be successfull with any negligence claim and I am not sure who you intend claiming against anyway, your insurance should cover your bike damage and your medical aid your hospital stay, as far as compensation for pain and suffering, Uh-Uh, dont think so.

 

Be careful with your medical aid when there is a third party claim. I only found out six months after my stay in hospital that the scheme had refused to remit most of my bills when they discovered there was another vehicle involved in my case. They would only (help to) pay if I contracted a lawyer and gave them an undertaking that once successful with an RAF claim I would pay them back.

[Zeps]

Be careful with your medical aid when there is a third party claim. I only found out six months after my stay in hospital that the scheme had refused to remit most of my bills when they discovered there was another vehicle involved in my case. They would only (help to) pay if I contracted a lawyer and gave them an undertaking that once successful with an RAF claim I would pay them back.

 

So you'll be paying them back then

[Tumbleweed]

So you'll be paying them back then

 

No, actually. By the time they informed me of this, the clinics, docs, etc who hadn't been paid had also tracked me down (at a new address) and sent me final demands. I didn't have time to sort out a lawyer, etc, so I dug into my bond and paid them myself. The scheme had, however, paid for some scans, X-rays and my first hospital stay. I told the scheme that because of their bad service and lack of communication with me, I would not be repaying them.

 

Another lesson I learnt back then (the accident happened four years ago) was that a medical aid giving you authorisation for something is not necessarily a guarantee that they'll pay.

[reteid]

the RAF will only be liable to pay if the accident arose or was caused by the negligent driving of a motorvehicle.i doubt whether the RAF will pay out.your possible claim will be against the owner of the land on which the danger was created and he will then in all probability add another defendant as being the person responsible for digging the hole and not taking the necessary care to safeguard it.your claim is not in contract but in delict.I doubt very much if you will eventually walk away from this one the winner taking into consideration the time/costs/possibility of successful action etc.

 

My suggestion would be to claim from insurance(medical and bike) work on the MTB skills,heal well and go and ride your bike.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Be careful with your medical aid when there is a third party claim. I only found out six months after my stay in hospital that the scheme had refused to remit most of my bills when they discovered there was another vehicle involved in my case. They would only (help to) pay if I contracted a lawyer and gave them an undertaking that once successful with an RAF claim I would pay them back.

 

Well, thats interesting, I am assuming they agreed to the hospitalisation before they knew there was a third party.?

I am wondering why this changes when there is a third party involved, in my opinion their contract is with you and not the third party, so if they want to recover funds they must do so themselves, I cant see why its your responsibility.

[Tumbleweed]

Well, thats interesting, I am assuming they agreed to the hospitalisation before they knew there was a third party.?

I am wondering why this changes when there is a third party involved, in my opinion their contract is with you and not the third party, so if they want to recover funds they must do so themselves, I cant see why its your responsibility.

 

Bit complicated because it involved two different stays, days apart. I was taken to hospital by an ambulance. The ambo, that stay and the scans, facial-maxillo dude, etc were settled. I was discharged two days later and asked to return four days after that. I think when they got saw the admission codes, they did further enquiries.

 

I also found it odd, and it made me kinda angry. Apparently it differs from scheme to scheme.

 

ps, The scheme then sent me a list of approved RAF lawyers.

[mark ellis]

There was a lawyer in PMB who had a bad crash due to a pothole and was very badly injured. He sued and one a large amount of cash but took a long time and I would imagen would cost a lot of money if you not a lawyer

[Riverboy]

Guys. Books can and has been written on this very tricky aspect of the law. Generally the law requires a negligent or intentional ACT by the wrongdoer. But Municipalities have been held liable for "commission by omission" on the basis that they have a DUTY to maintain roads. No such duty on a farmer except maybe when he charges you for use of the trail.

By the time you paid your lawyer you could have bought a whole new bike. But lawyers need bikes too. So go ahead and sue.

[Capcha]

Are you for real or are you taking the piss out of us hubbers?

[Stefanh]

Thanx to all

 

Heres pictures of it. You cant see it from 10m away, it just looks like the road is going on. its about half a meter deep

 

 

Where is this ditch?? It looks very familiar

[The Drongo]

Thanx to all

 

Heres pictures of it. You cant see it from 10m away, it just looks like the road is going on. its about half a meter deep

 

 

I have one word for you sir - when you are all better: bunny hop

[Tumbleweed]

Also worth noting in a RAF claim is the percentage settlements they offer. I got a 80/20 settlement. What this meant is that the RAF's legal representatives were of the opinion that while the taxi was most probably to blame, I would have to accept 20% of the blame, as there have been some action I could have taken to avoid the accident. This would be argued in the merit section of a trial (that's assuming if we could find a High Court judge to hear the trial). It also meant throwing myself on the mercy of the court and hoping for a judge who was in a giving mood that day. I accepted the offer. Justice on the steps!

[The Drongo]

Also worth noting in a RAF claim is the percentage settlements they offer. I got a 80/20 settlement. What this meant is that the RAF's legal representatives were of the opinion that while the taxi was most probably to blame, I would have to accept 20% of the blame, as there have been some action I could have taken to avoid the accident. This would be argued in the merit section of a trial (that's assuming if we could find a High Court judge to hear the trial). It also meant throwing myself on the mercy of the court and hoping for a judge who was in a giving mood that day. I accepted the offer. Justice on the steps!

 

Oh for Pete's sake. He was on a MOUNTAIN BIKE.

 

The LOOOONG answer is - NO!

[ronniebuis]

I have one word for you sir - when you are all better: bunny hop

Seeing as everyone was so gung-ho earlier and kakking on everyone else (in jest some claim), can I have my turn at PMS - "You blerry foooooool - bunny hop is two words, unless hifen _ _ _,hyphen _ _ _, hyfen _ _ _ uh, with a streepie in between