Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This story came up 2 nights ago at work during a midnight conversation. One of the nurses knew the doctor in question and was telling us what happened so we decided to do some research and found this article online. Simple story is there was a crash where he lost control of the car and went into another vehicle. The woman in the car died while her husband and several others injured. While waiting for paramedics the doc worked on the woman, trying to save her. The courts banned him from driving for 3 years and fined him £5000. Now the husband of the dead woman is suing him for £300,000 which the doctor is disputing. My question is do you think the surgeon is right in refusing to pay the £300,000 or should he be paying up?

Article below: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246256/Benjamin-Kendrick-Surgeon-killed-30-stone-woman-crash-refusing-pay-300-000-damages-victims-size-reduced-life-expectancy.html

Edit: Also is it his fault she died? Apologies if this doesn't make much sense, was written just after a night shift.

The doctor caused the wreck? Then he could be held liable under "wrongful death" in the US.

He's not refusing to pay damages. Just that total amount.
Seems reasonable for him to disagree over how much it should be especially given the courts decision concerning how her weight may have affected her survival.

 Azza007 wrote:
Now the husband of the dead woman is suing him for £300,000 which the doctor is disputing. My question is do you think the surgeon is right in refusing to pay the £300,000 or should he be paying up?

In the words of the great H Simpson, that is for the courts to decide!

Honestly, I don't get what the problem is. He has every right to disagree with the amount. He (or his insurance company) should pay whatever the final settlement is after the court case, including any appeals.

If he refuses to pay the final settlement then there is enforcement routes to take like any debt. They can seize is property etc. Its not for the court of public opinion to decide.

Surely his insurance company would be liable for the damages, if the court decided against him.

Surgeons may be well paid but they don't have £300,000 sitting around. That is why a responsible driver has insurance.

I think he's right to only pay the court ordered costs and its a shame if the husband wins because it would potentially mean doctors/nurses when seeing an accident, or being involved in one might not help in fear or being sued.

Unless insurance works drastically differently in the UK, the doctor himself doesn't have any say in the matter. It's up to the insurance company to choose to fight or accept liability and pay out.

 Azza007 wrote:
This story came up 2 nights ago at work during a midnight conversation. One of the nurses knew the doctor in question and was telling us what happened so we decided to do some research and found this article online. Simple story is there was a crash where he lost control of the car and went into another vehicle. The woman in the car died while her husband and several others injured. While waiting for paramedics the doc worked on the woman, trying to save her. The courts banned him from driving for 3 years and fined him £5000. Now the husband of the dead woman is suing him for £300,000 which the doctor is disputing. My question is do you think the surgeon is right in refusing to pay the £300,000 or should he be paying up?

Article below: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246256/Benjamin-Kendrick-Surgeon-killed-30-stone-woman-crash-refusing-pay-300-000-damages-victims-size-reduced-life-expectancy.html

Thats called adjudication of a lawsuit.

 commisar rhodes wrote:
I think he's right to only pay the court ordered costs and its a shame if the husband wins because it would potentially mean doctors/nurses when seeing an accident, or being involved in one might not help in fear or being sued.

Hes not being sued for the helping, but for the crashing, the same as anyone else

So basically he is saying "£300,000 is a good sum of money if she would have lived until she was 80, but she was a fattie so she would have been dead a lot earlier anyway so I don't wanna pay that much"?

 d-usa wrote:
So basically he is saying "£300,000 is a good sum of money if she would have lived until she was 80, but she was a fattie so she would have been dead a lot earlier anyway so I don't wanna pay that much"?

In a nutshell, yes.

When you put it like that... fair point.

 commisar rhodes wrote:
I think he's right to only pay the court ordered costs and its a shame if the husband wins because it would potentially mean doctors/nurses when seeing an accident, or being involved in one might not help in fear or being sued.

Many countries have Good Samaritan laws to reduce the chances of litigation against First Responders and other medical personnel carrying out their duties. In this case however the Doctor was the cause of the accident and the injuries sustained in same. That is why he be is being sued.

The issue I have was the doctor offered a payment yet the husband turned it down as he wanted more. But it is not about money. I also do not think the doctor is responsible, at least completely. She got hit by her mobility scooter that was improperly secured, probably what killed her and not the impact of the crash as such. There also is nothing to say he was driving dangerously just that he lost control of the car.

 Azza007 wrote:
The issue I have was the doctor offered a payment yet the husband turned it down as he wanted more. But it is not about money. I also do not think the doctor is responsible, at least completely. She got hit by her mobility scooter that was improperly secured, probably what killed her and not the impact of the crash as such. There also is nothing to say he was driving dangerously just that he lost control of the car.

If the collision was not his fault then the court would not have fined him and stripped him of his licence for 3 years. They point about the mobility scooter hitting her is a minor one. It may reduce the damages paid if the Doctor's lawyer can argue contributory negligence, but the Doctor was the cause of the accident. Therefore the liability largely rests with him.

 d-usa wrote:
So basically he is saying "£300,000 is a good sum of money if she would have lived until she was 80, but she was a fattie so she would have been dead a lot earlier anyway so I don't wanna pay that much"?

Generally, it isn't stated quite that insultingly, but yes, that's the gist of it. I sat on a wrongful death civil lawsuit a few years back in the US, and although they didn't touch it until closing arguments, both the prosecution and defense tried to put a monetary value on the deceased's life, expectation of life, and quality of life.

The prosecution went last, and played really dirty by pointing out how much the defense had paid for medical experts for a few days of their time, and what that would equate to for the deceased woman. It was really inspired.

 d-usa wrote:
So basically he is saying "£300,000 is a good sum of money if she would have lived until she was 80, but she was a fattie so she would have been dead a lot earlier anyway so I don't wanna pay that much"?

I can agree with that

30 stone. That can't be that overweight.

(googling later)

OMGWTFBBQ. That's pretty big.

Interesting that a person's life (or death, I suppose) is worth more if they have more time left to live. Does this mean that the young are worth more than the old, regardless of health?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about ugly people? I mean, excessively ugly? Are they worth less than beautiful people? Smart vs stupid?

 daedalus wrote:
30 stone. That can't be that overweight.

(googling later)

OMGWTFBBQ. That's pretty big.

Interesting that a person's life (or death, I suppose) is worth more if they have more time left to live. Does this mean that the young are worth more than the old, regardless of health?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about ugly people? I mean, excessively ugly? Are they worth less than beautiful people? Smart vs stupid?

You can't put a price on life itself. You can put a price on what that person may have contributed in their life had it not been cut short.

 daedalus wrote:
Interesting that a person's life (or death, I suppose) is worth more if they have more time left to live. Does this mean that the young are worth more than the old, regardless of health?

A big chunk of the Michael Jackson Death trial will focus on how long he could have lived to see how much money he could have made.

30 stones = 420 pounds.

As for the case in question, its up for the courts to decide his financial obligations, correct? Can you appeal a civil court case ruling in the UK to a higher court/authority?

 daedalus wrote:
Interesting that a person's life (or death, I suppose) is worth more if they have more time left to live. Does this mean that the young are worth more than the old, regardless of health?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about ugly people? I mean, excessively ugly? Are they worth less than beautiful people? Smart vs stupid?

Payment in these types of cases will often revolve around how long the person was expected to live (so health will be relevant) and how much (s)he may have expected to earn over the remainder of their life, had it not been cut short. So health would have been relevant, but beauty and intelligence less so unless working in a field were such were an advantage (modelling, astrophysics etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
As for the case in question, its up for the courts to decide his financial obligations, correct? Can you appeal a civil court case ruling in the UK to a higher court/authority?

I believe that if you are given leave to appeal then you can all the way up to the House of Lords (Supreme Court), but ordinarily in those cases you are arguing on a point of law, not just that you didn't get enough money.

Uhm...I really don't see much of a problem and I don't like the article, it seems to jump a lot. Anyway.

After the accident, he didn't just stand there, he actively tried to rescue the injured woman. He never said he wouldn't pay her husband, he just said that the sum he suggested was way too high and aimed at someone with a standard life expectation. She, however, was REALLY fat and thus had a lower life expectation so he wants to pay less than for an average woman. If that is correct, and if not correct me please, he is fully correct and free of guilt.

He does not "refuse to pay", as the title suggests, he refuses to pay the sum her husband claimed - which is his given right.

You probably could assign relative values to people concerning how valuable they are to society by taking into account dozens of factors. It's kinda grim and dehumanising though so i doubt you would want to.

 purplefood wrote:
You probably could assign relative values to people concerning how valuable they are to society by taking into account dozens of factors. It's kinda grim and dehumanising though so i doubt you would want to.

Iirc, adjusting compensation sums according to the life expectation is common practice in certain areas for a long time now.

/e: Yep, life insurance.

It does seem fair if companies are allowed to do it for insurance...

Why isn't it fair for normal people then?

No as in. It seems fair for normal people to do it if companies are allowed to do it.

Ah, sorry, got you wrong there

Wonder how chubby the husband is......