Jump to content

Lawrence and Bennett Convicted of drink driving


alexxxxx
Message added by David

May I remind members of the forum terms of use and prohibited content - Personal insults/profanity towards other members, players, staff, media or anyone connected to Derby County Football Club.

Also please do not use this forum to create or further spread unverified rumours from social media on the incident.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

Fair enough, may be wrong then, just seemed to remember it that way. That’s what I’d expect the law to be, adults responsible, kids not.

I think when it became law to wear them in the front you are right it was the drivers. 

I think..then again im sure there are lots of rules loads of us don't understand or are wrong about because we always assumed it was that way.

I still know people who think the legal alcohol limit is 2 pints and drive after 2 pints.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Whilst I'd agree entirely with the sentiment, it goes without saying that... assuming (hypothetically) that Keogh does go ahead with a claim... we mere mortals are still unsure whether he'd actually be looking "to make money out of it", or merely attempting to cover some/all of any related costs/losses etc.
None of us know whether the club is paying for medical treatment.  None of know whether he is getting paid (wages or sick pay) be that in full or part.  It's possible he could be losing out considerably, in the financial sense.  That's ignoring any stress/depression and physical pain etc, which is also usually taken into account with these claims.  

It's not always about "Making money out of the situation", and ultimately, we on here know absolutely nothing of the circumstances.

I understand what you're saying. However, I think the point we're trying to make is that, unless he was bundled into the back of the car against his will, he shouldn't try and deflect the blame by taking legal proceedings. It was his choice to get in a drunk driver's car and he should be prepared to accept the consequences of his decision, be they financial, physical or mental.

Hopefully, that's what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, admira said:

So the court case is in a few days and some of the stories that have been flying about will finally get to be revealed as fact or fiction. I’m most interested to hear how many times over the limit they were. 

Not sure if all the details will come out.

what happens if they just plead guilty?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I understand what you're saying. However, I think the point we're trying to make is that, unless he was bundled into the back of the car against his will, he shouldn't try and deflect the blame by taking legal proceedings. It was his choice to get in a drunk driver's car and he should be prepared to accept the consequences of his decision, be they financial, physical or mental.

Hopefully, that's what he's doing.

Hey, I totally agree with you... just drinking The Devil's Advocaat here!

Let's face it, any claim would be against an insurance company.  It wouldn't be anything personal!  
A loss is a loss, and if he's judged to be 50% to blame, he could get 50% of his losses back, which is better than 0%.

 

... Man falls through roof through his own bloody stupidity/negligence ( in my opinion, based on being a first hand witness and experienced in the requirements) but still claims damages off his employer.  Employer gets fined by HSE (which would have happened anyway, regardless of employee's claim).  HSE find them 50/50 at fault.  Employer's insurance pays out a hefty wad to the employee.  As both employer and employee "go back years", the employee eventually (3 years down the line) returns to work for the same employer... no hard feelings!  Nothing personal! Still bessy mates!

Now that's a very brief summary admittedly, but it ain't hypothesis... it's factual and a situation known to me. 
OK, the employer's insurance premiums went up of course, but in essence, arguably by very little, in relation to the employee's claim.  The bulk of the increase related more to the HSE's findings, the (part) guilty verdict, and the resultant fine.  The employee's claim effectively made next to no difference (financially) to the employer... his mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paul71 said:

The amount over may not be a huge factor in the punishment if some of the rumours about leaving the scene, speed, etc were involved. Lets hope a lot of the rumours are just tabloid tripe.

Gave your post a 'clap' just to say it's good to have you back mate. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Van Cone De Head said:

I’m a bit gutted that they have identified the 4 th person in the crash.

I was hoping to be able to claim that it was me and make a couple of quid.

Actually, don't tell anyone.....I heard a rumour that Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar were also in the car....Keep it hush hush though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Actually, don't tell anyone.....I heard a rumour that Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar were also in the car....Keep it hush hush though.

I'd heard a similar rumour the only difference being that Keoghs knee damage was the result of him falling off a Unicorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2019 at 12:57, Mucker1884 said:

Hey, I totally agree with you... just drinking The Devil's Advocaat here!

Let's face it, any claim would be against an insurance company.  It wouldn't be anything personal!  
A loss is a loss, and if he's judged to be 50% to blame, he could get 50% of his losses back, which is better than 0%.

 

... Man falls through roof through his own bloody stupidity/negligence ( in my opinion, based on being a first hand witness and experienced in the requirements) but still claims damages off his employer.  Employer gets fined by HSE (which would have happened anyway, regardless of employee's claim).  HSE find them 50/50 at fault.  Employer's insurance pays out a hefty wad to the employee.  As both employer and employee "go back years", the employee eventually (3 years down the line) returns to work for the same employer... no hard feelings!  Nothing personal! Still bessy mates!

Now that's a very brief summary admittedly, but it ain't hypothesis... it's factual and a situation known to me. 
OK, the employer's insurance premiums went up of course, but in essence, arguably by very little, in relation to the employee's claim.  The bulk of the increase related more to the HSE's findings, the (part) guilty verdict, and the resultant fine.  The employee's claim effectively made next to no difference (financially) to the employer... his mate!

similarly, playing golf with 3 mates.  Mate A puts his ball in a bunker, mate B stands too close with Mate A telling him to move.  He doesn't move and mate A shanks the ball into mate B's face causing massive damage to his teeth.  Mate B sues mate A so that the insurance will cover the medical costs; they are still mates btw.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2019 at 10:17, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

That’s something that was mentioned last year but we didn’t really study it. However, a brief Google search says this:

 

However, getting into a vehicle knowing the driver has been drinking does have consequences for a claim for personal injury. The insurers of the driver of the vehicle will more than likely argue contributory negligence for passengers making a claim for personal injury in these types of circumstances.

The consequences of this is that the amount of compensation you should be entitled to will normally be reduced by the percentage you are believed to have been contributory negligent for your injuries. The average deduction in cases such as this is normally around 25% – however this figure varies and can be negotiated depending on individual circumstances.

 

I imagine and hope that the story about him claiming damages is a load of rubbish, though.

Working in insurance as I do, I’m pretty sure that if Keogh trashed his knees in the accident, there is some shyster somewhere who will be advising him on how to put a whiplash claim in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Van der MoodHoover said:

Working in insurance as I do, I’m pretty sure that if Keogh trashed his knees in the accident, there is some shyster somewhere who will be advising him on how to put a whiplash claim in ?

Of course. I mean, most likely he had severe headache in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2019 at 11:36, RamNut said:

Not sure if all the details will come out.

what happens if they just plead guilty?

 

If they plead guilty, then there won't be many details.  You'll get the technical stuff about the breathalyser and state of the cars etc. But you won't get any story behind the incident.

My assumption based on the statements issued by both players a couple of weeks' ago is that they intend to plead guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would just like to issue a reminder of the bright red warning at the top of this topic. This also applies to posts on the incident elsewhere on the forum.

We will and have been issuing warnings to those that ignore it, so please think before posting, this is a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...