Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:07 am

Dont worry everyone - seems there's plenty of legs left in this one!

"... parties agree that terms of settlement, accident, circumstances of the accident & all matters etc... remain confidential"
LOL! anyone know how to delete the internet?
Seems a very odd point to put in there dont you think? i wonder why!

Stay tuned kids!
(pre-trial review is on the 10th May)

User avatar
The Womble
Posts: 3395
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: Brisbane QLD
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby The Womble » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:20 am

Nate wrote:
The Womble wrote:I havent read much of this but, its illegal to hit a pedestrian...


waaaaay off the mark...
a) no its not
b) they're at fault MOST of the time they're hit

You missed the point. I wasnt interested in making a worthwhile contribution. As usual

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:42 am

Nate wrote:Dont worry everyone - seems there's plenty of legs left in this one!

"... parties agree that terms of settlement, accident, circumstances of the accident & all matters etc... remain confidential"
LOL! anyone know how to delete the internet?
Seems a very odd point to put in there dont you think? i wonder why!

Stay tuned kids!
(pre-trial review is on the 10th May)


Oh dear. Was that in the document you signed? I mean you have been magnanimous to keep his name out but not <detail removed>. Reputational risk for a meagre $5k?

I suppose he's thinking of his future earnings...or lack thereof. Seeing he has dragged this out interminably, was too much of a coward to face you in court, if you don't get the full payout, may as well do whatever you want to do.
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:00 am

It was only for the amount of $ that it was settled for - we're now nit picking over the terms of settlement :)

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:05 am

Guess who's been reading the forum???

*waves* heya bud!

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Xplora » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:13 am

Nate wrote:Guess who's been reading the forum???

*waves* heya bud!

As no settlement had been finalised, there is no settlement. You could agree to a dollar amount, but still reserve the right to take further action if there are long term consequences of the accident (which there inevitably will be).

BTW, Mr Pedestrian, if you're reading this, you have no legal recourse at all, and we can privately contact Nate despite anything you threaten the forum with... so I'd suggest you play nice and realise that your failure to accept responsibility will inevitably come back to bite you.

Kind Regards,
The jackboot of civic respect about to be delivered to your butt. :lol:

User avatar
hannos
Posts: 4105
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:18 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby hannos » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:20 am

Nate wrote:Guess who's been reading the forum???

*waves* heya bud!



huh?

What have I missed?
2010 BMC SLC01

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29011
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Mulger bill » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 am

Nate wrote:Guess who's been reading the forum???


You're a geek aren't you? Get me an IP, I'll put a stop to that. :twisted:

It's not like he can credibly accuse me of improper conduct...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:59 pm

Nate wrote:It was only for the amount of $ that it was settled for - we're now nit picking over the terms of settlement :)


Lol. Can't believe he wants to gag you for a fortnight of his wages. C'mon. 4 figures to gag someone? Does he think his misdemeanour should be covered up? Trainee lawyer, YOU INJURED A FELLOW HUMAN BEING. OWN UP TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD OF LAW. And btw, you committed perjury when you said that you didn't receive Nate's documents by registered post - sent to the <details removed> offices.

That one is a biggie. Do clients of <details removed> realise registered posted documents get lost in the <details removed> mailroom? Surely that has ramifications for the security of the place, or Australia Post's efficacy...or is it just in fact some employee decides to deny knowledge of receiving such documents.

What a complicated web we weave.......

PS I would have raised questions over this <details removed> trainee lawyer's integrity but clearly he has none
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby cp123 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:35 pm

I'm a techno gumby. I wanna know how Nate knew the mr a-hole found this thread. :twisted:

User avatar
ft_critical
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:06 pm
Location: watching the 11
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby ft_critical » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:59 pm

Oxford wrote:To gag he needs to rise above cost recovery and pay for the privilege.


And thus, to remove this most enjoyable thread, he would need to pay each of us for the loss of amusement. Wow, that could be expensive :shock:

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby cp123 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:05 pm

gosh - i'd bung on $10,000 for pain and suffering like they seem to do in america.

User avatar
jules21
Posts: 10371
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jules21 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:10 pm

it seems this lawyer got owned at his own game. suck it up princess! :)

User avatar
roller
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: embleton

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby roller » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:12 pm

cp123 wrote:gosh - i'd bung on $10,000 for pain and suffering like they seem to do in america.


$10,000?

ONE MILLION!!
inflammatory statement or idea

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:14 pm

ft_critical wrote:
Oxford wrote:To gag he needs to rise above cost recovery and pay for the privilege.


And thus, to remove this most enjoyable thread, he would need to pay each of us for the loss of amusement. Wow, that could be expensive :shock:


I agree. :)
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
jules21
Posts: 10371
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jules21 » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:15 pm

roller wrote:$10,000?

ONE MILLION!!

Image

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:20 pm

CommuRider wrote:you committed perjury when you said that you didn't receive Nate's documents by registered post - sent to the offices.


not correct...
You cant serve someone via post at their place of business - only home.
On a side note when i was waiting in the courts there was a HUGE barney where someone said they never received a serving from a Sherriff - apparently there were on a different floor & they seemed pretty genuine about it - so it seems that even a person can make an error, & its wrong of you to claim he committed perjury when there's no proof. (probably a mis reading of the 2year old thread)

He said he knew nothing of the proceedings, which (off the top of my head) would include: registered post when he got served (sent by the courts, there is no receipt of it - you cannot check the records), notice of default judgment & garnishee order (regular post). I never had concrete proof that he did in fact receive the documents, although I am skeptical given previous statements made & the fact that it would seriously be unlikely that multiple documents would all be lost.

He was only given the letter of demand (before proceedings started) at work - he never declared he didn't receive that.

What is odd is that the mailroom at his work place doesnt require signing when you pick up stuff - yeah i chased that one up :)
If anything is delivered by courrier at my place i have to sign for it! His work has a general guy pick everything up from the PO box, sign & then they give it to the mail room. Once its signed for from the post office - there's essentially no tracking/evidence.

Lesson learned - serve via process server (Sheriff) ONLY, as i clarified with the registrar - why bother offering registered post if it is possible you can just say "meh, its not perfect i never received anything" & its by default accepted.

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:32 pm

Ok my bad given the trail of document serving seems to go awry. I withdraw my remarks claiming the law firms mailroom folks do not work efficiently but this ensures a great deal of trust in the integrity of the mailroom boys - or highly convenient to state they don't sign giving lawyers this small loophole to know nothing and claim nothing because they received nothing?

Anyway, with the first serving via Sheriff's registered post, how can you not track the number? Surely you can just ring Auspost or check the number online?!!! I thought the point of multiple docs is to ensure that the person being served receives those docs. If he doesn't better get his local Auspost involved. (of course this assumes he is entirely blameless and somehow his mailbox got stolen or the Auspost people don't deliver to his house :roll: )
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:44 pm

CommuRider wrote:Anyway, with the first serving via Sheriff's registered post, how can you not track the number?


via Austpost's registered post - not the Sheriff's ;)
The local court sends it out - so the local court would have the tracking number and be able to check, however they do not have a record of that number & a member of public cannot get that number to confirm with Aust post. I tried chasing that down obviously but was met with "no, all i can do is look at this system & it says it has been correctly served & the date is X".

The oddity is that even if its not signed for - the court deems it as being "served" 5 days (*i think*) after its sent!
So even if its never received or signed for - it is considered to be served correctly by the courts & proceedings can continue. You can of course appeal that (what happened in my case) - if its to a wrong address etc

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13158
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby AUbicycles » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:21 pm

Mod Says: A law firm name was removed as it is not required for this thread to continue to discuss the incident. Thanks for your understanding and should there be an interest in discussing this decision (and general proceedure), best inside the Forum Feedback.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:25 pm

AUbicycles wrote:Mod Says: A law firm name was removed as it is not required for this thread to continue to discuss the incident. Thanks for your understanding and should there be an interest in discussing this decision (and general proceedure), best inside the Forum Feedback.


fair call - the firm name is completely & has had no involvement in proceedings to my knowledge

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Mon May 09, 2011 11:11 am

Although the matter has settled & the forms have apparently been faxed to the courts, im still listed to appear tomorrow!
Might have to duck in & make sure that nothing dodgy is going on... I'm assuming they're just backlogged & havent processed the orders yet... best to not assume though!

Also got my RTA report & signalling information, sure does make for some interesting reading - especially compared to signed & written police statements i have, especially when they carry the phrase "i shall be liable to prosecution if i have willfully stated in it anything which i know to be false or do not believe to be true"!

Hopefully tomorrow the whole court thing should be 100% complete!

thomashouseman
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:07 am
Location: Toongabbie NSW
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby thomashouseman » Mon May 09, 2011 11:20 am

Nate wrote:Although the matter has settled & the forms have apparently been faxed to the courts, im still listed to appear tomorrow!
Might have to duck in & make sure that nothing dodgy is going on... I'm assuming they're just backlogged & havent processed the orders yet... best to not assume though!

Also got my RTA report & signalling information, sure does make for some interesting reading - especially compared to signed & written police statements i have, especially when they carry the phrase "i shall be liable to prosecution if i have willfully stated in it anything which i know to be false or do not believe to be true"!

Hopefully tomorrow the whole court thing should be 100% complete!


Yes, definitely show up if you're listed to appear! Better safe than sorry!

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29011
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Mulger bill » Mon May 09, 2011 8:02 pm

I wouldn't put it past him to be shifty somehow.

Show up but stay out of sight until you're called.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Mon May 09, 2011 9:35 pm

Is it possible that he can have the listing move to an earlier/later time? Hmmm
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2wheels_mond, a-frame81, antigee, Dave_C, eldo0019, Jmuzz, madmacca, No_Jedi, thamete, Waccofozzy