[Closed] Claiming from council over pot hole accident?

I would guess he may want to eliminate the possibility that you might have a previous shoulder injury making separation/dislocation a frequent and easy thing, in the event the other side makes that claim).

No reason he can't give you that explanation though, instead of being a dick about it.

My thoughts exactly! That would be an acceptable explanation to me. A load of flannel just makes me suspicious!

Other solicitors are available, think I’d be after a better explanation then off elsewhere if it’s not forthcoming

A solicitor makes me suspicious.... 😉

Have been in similar situation in the past and at no point was asked for this sort of history by my solicitor or the other party. If you need one I'd highly recommend Cycle Law Scotland for specialist representation.

Even if you'd had that injury before, it's still down to the pot hole this time, surely? I'd ask them for a decent explanation and let them know you'll be looking elsewhere if you don't get one, purely on principle.

Is it an injury specialist ambulance chaser type? My guess would be you'll find them chasing you about every other injury you've had in the last few years to suggest you claim and or wanting to tag on a billion* dollar claim for the scuffed knee you got at the same time.

Complete guess though. Can't see any legitimate reason to ask you for it.

*£3.50 after deduction of fees.

If I can successfully claim for a damaged car tyre, surely you can claim for a personal injury!
The council is covered by insurance and they just pass the claim to them.
Mine went via https://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazards/report - looks like you could use it for any claim.
3rd page of the report -

Is there anything stopping you going to a different solicitor?

If its being done on a no win no fee basis the solicitor will need medical history to ensure you haven't had previous issues with that shoulder.... if you did it would seriously reduce the amount of your claim and the costs they could charge the council. As mentioned it will also reduce the likelihood of them winning the case....potentially leaving them out of pocket! I think its a sign of a professional outfit.
Incidentally Leigh Day are handling my case having been knocked off in December and am pleased with how its going 🙂

If its being done on a no win no fee basis the solicitor will need medical history to ensure you haven’t had previous issues with that shoulder….

Previous history is irrelevantin my understanding. It's called the "eggshell skull" rule and the judge held that "you take your victim as you find them" - i.e., the fact that you may be pre-disposed to a particular type of injury or harm is not relevant.

The defendant should not have caused you the harm so for them to say "well, we didn't know the claimant had a previously damaged shoulder, so because he did have previous problems then we're going to pay out less..." is clearly wrong.

It's like crashing your car into another car and the defence saying "you could have crashed your car into the car with only one occupant, rather than a family of four. So we're only going to pay out less."

My injury claim required my entire medical history, and I'm 52!.

It's to make sure there was no preexisting injury or condition, and may also potentially help advise if you are at risk of any longer term complications.

But basically solicitors are just nosey bastards

Egg shell skull was a criminal case rather than civil case? Preexisting conditions do affect civil claims

If you are not bothered by your previous history being know to them, why not let them have it. If this means you get paid out then go for it. Perhaps they could have answered you question better, try ringing them and speaking to someone sensible.

Egg shell skull was a criminal case rather than civil case? Preexisting conditions do affect civil claims

No

The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule or talem qualem rule)[1] is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems,[2] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

Also from that page:
The thin skull rule is not to be confused with the related crumbling skull rule in which the plaintiff suffers from a detrimental position (from a prior injury, for instance) pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort. In the "crumbling skull" rule, the prior condition is only to be considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new injury arising from the present tort – as a means of apportioning damages in such a way that the defendant would not be liable for placing the plaintiff in a better position than they were in prior to the present tort.[7]

Clearly, the pothole is nothing to do with any preexisting defect. So pay up yer brastards. And find a better solicitor.

The council is covered by insurance and they just pass the claim to them.

The excess will be usually be far higher than the value of tyre damage and quite possibly cyclists with shoulder damage.

Clearly, the pothole is nothing to do with any preexisting defect.

Which can only be decided by checking the claimants medical history, obviously.

Thanks for your replies everyone.
I’m coming to the conclusion that different solicitors address these things differently.
I’m not overly impressed with their lack of reassurance. There’s been no “thanks, it’s a legitimate question but we need your full records because of xxxx, but rest assured we will store and use your data in accordance with GDPR”.