Self-Actualization through Accident Claim Help

Others as Means
Fortunate, truly fortunate, are claimants who look at the claiming process as more than a mere procedure to obtain their compensation. Because they see the same as an opportunity to shatter their personal limits and transcend their misconceived restrictions, they finish the process not just with an impressive bank account but also with a new personality, a new humanity, a more hopeful and invigorated will to life. A fundamental question which serves as a marker discriminating those who end up renewed in spirit and those who end up enriched in a materialistic way only is “How should claimants approach accident claim help advice?”

Those who answer that they should rely on other people’s advice frame their experiences within the paradigms of dependence and stupefying subservience. In their apathy or perplexity, they are more than willing to sacrifice their intelligence in exchange for ease and leisure. They finish the process without learning anything because they have not exercised any mental muscle. We look at them and turn away in pity and disgust. Those, however, who answer that although other people are the starting points of learning, that nevertheless it is our duty as autonomous individuals to evaluate what they say and adapt them to the unique circumstances of our case, its inherent special qualities that only we are cognizant of, will end up feeling reborn and worthier of their compensation. They have done the law – and their sense of dignity – justice.

The Umbilical Connection
Why should looking for a person who can offer us excellent accident claim help be an issue when it is generally understood that all the advice that we will ever need will be presented to us by whoever we hire to act as our lawyers? Why should there still be a need to listen to other people, especially laymen, when it can be proven that not only are their pieces of advice untutored in the technical school of law, but are also sometimes conflicting with what our solicitors say?

The answer is simple: lawyers make mistakes too. Even if laymen are not qualified people to correct lawyers, this does not mean that they can never teach them anything. What laymen and the claimant himself can contribute to the legal process is a more judicious ascertainment of facts. Lawyers are experts only on the matter of the law. But cases are decided not just on legal points, but also on factual points. Whether or not anything happened in a certain way can only be answered by those whose minds are not confined within a complicated theory. Simple people, even children, can be used to bolster assertions of fact because they are credible, despite their want of knowledge in the law.

Using Laws to Demand Compensation for Whiplash Injury

The Intent of the Law
It is a truism that in formulating an argument, the first requisite is the provision of the appropriate law. Claimants and their counsels need to locate the necessary statute or precedent which will bolster their positions and enable them to win their cases. Nevertheless, despite the arduousness of research, plaintiffs and defendants must not think that the entire job of litigation consists of searching for laws and cases alone. For the truth is that this is only the beginning, the gate which when passed, opens up a broad vista of new obligations to satisfy.

The immediate task that awaits claimants and their counsels after locating the pertinent laws that they need is the interpretation of its contents. In technical language, this act of understanding or deciphering what a law means is called statutory construction. In demanding compensation for whiplash injury, for example, claimants need to see how our tort laws on that subject should be read. The well-settled guidelines regarding this type of hermeneutics are three: ordinary meaning, historical reference, and wholeness. That is to say, in order to declare with authority what a certain statute denotes, they must read the words contained therein using their plain and non-technical meaning, refer to the debates and speeches given by the law’s framers, and compare each provision with each other and read them in harmony.

Qualifications for Holdings
By now, the term ratio decidendi should be familiar to you. Plainly put, the ratio of a case is that part of it wherein the court explains its reasons regarding its decision. As a plaintiff demanding compensation for whiplash injury in a country whose jurisprudence is dominated by case law, you must know that more than merely quoting statutes, you need to cite precedents that contain a ratio that supports your contention in order to convince the courts of the justice and fitness of your accident claim. Another word for the ratio is “holding.”  Thus, when anyone asks what the holding of a case is, he is in fact asking what the doctrine enunciated in that case is and when it can be applied.

Two determinations, however, must make you circumspect. For one thing, there are certain kinds of cases which have no ratio. First, cases that are not resolved because they are moot and academic obviously have no holding. Doctrines are generated only when actual controversies are resolved. Without a real conflict, the courts will not act. Second, dissenting opinions also do not count as holding. Only the opinion of the majority is binding. Another thing you must study is the fact that not all holdings remain valid until today. Doctrines are regularly though infrequently overturned in favor of new ones.

My Education

In life, I am content to dispense with overly metaphysical wondering. All I need is to ask myself whether or not a certain activity is useful. If it is, then I do it. If it is not, then I desist. Beyond that my weak brain cannot muster another step. This attitude is inherent in my personality, I think. Thus, when I filed No Win No Fee whiplash claims, I was not surprised when the only consideration I asked myself was purely that of utility.

Should I file No Win No Fee whiplash claims? It was useful to receive compensation. Thus I did it. Should I hire a lawyer? Again, the same answer and the same action. Should I work hard in collecting testimonials and witnesses? No difference in my reply. And so on. What is not useful, as I saw while thinking about my claims, was to just sit around doing nothing while my neck injury was every day becoming worse and my injurer smugly falling into complaisance. I don’t understand that. What is the use of strutting around the person you injured just because he has not filed a case against something you know you did wrong? It is beyond me.

Eventually, I did receive my compensation. As a last farewell to that horrible experience, I went beyond myself and attempted to just distill from the whole thing what learning could be useful for me. On the bright side, I learned quite a number of good things. First, people can be kind to you if you do not approach them aggressively. Lawyers, too, are just the victims of stereotypes. They are not ambitious and profit-oriented monsters. At their best, they are their clients’ guardians. At their worst, however, they are their clients’ own devils, their partners in a cannibal relationship. Money is not always good to have. In fact, sometimes it gets in the way of happiness. On the dark side, I saw that people are not always impelled by reason when they go to court. There are times when they are merely driven by passion or jealousy or mere intent to annoy.

Prospective Applications of Accident at Work.co.uk Claims

Effects of New and Repealed Laws
What happens when in the middle of trying your Accident at Work.co.uk claims, a new law was suddenly passed which drastically changed the parameters of the compensation system? For example, suppose that you filed a moderate whiplash claim today, the expected range of compensation being anywhere from £4,575 – £14,500. Now, the day after, Parliament passed a law that stipulated that no moderate whiplash claim should be awarded anything more that £50. What would happen to your claim?

Of course such a situation would not be likely to happen, but it does embody a certain principle which is held dear by our courts – the prospective nature of law. In this case, unless the law expressly states that it is retroactive, it will not affect your claim because it is your right to have any lawsuit you filed to be processed and judged strictly in accordance with the laws which were existent at the time you began it. Even if the laws which governed the case you demanded had been repealed or scrapped, it would still retain a de facto power in your situation. This is in fact a good thing. New laws or repeals of old laws cannot take effect in situations where they affect a vested right or impair the obligation of contracts.

Official Capacity
Studying the different kinds of legal personalities which employers possess is the key in filing a winning Accident at Work.co.uk claims. The most integral distinction you must keep in mind is that which identifies your employer in his official capacity and in his personal capacity. This differentiation is essential to know because work accident claims can only be deemed proper when addressed towards acts done in the first and never in the latter.

Put precisely, as an employee, you can only demand compensation from your employer only and specifically to negligent acts he committed while he was functioning as your employer. You can demand work negligence claims against him for hiring incompetent workers, providing unsafe equipment, ignoring safety rules and policies, and littering the workplace with all kinds of obstructions. You cannot, however, demand work accident claims against him if he accidentally runs his vehicle over you while on the way home because he is no longer bound to practice his duty of care towards you during non-working hours. The right action to take, in this case, is to demand car accident claims because you are suing not his negligence as an employer, but his negligence as a private citizen. In case you file a work accident claim against him here, then expect to have your claim dismissed.

Using Precedents to Win Accident at Work Claims

Landmark Cases
Much of what comprises “advice” from the Internet today concerning accident at work claims can be reduced into one cardinal principle: consult a lawyer. This apparently benign command is in reality nothing more than a pathetic hook to snag the reader’s interest in order to fill up a law company’s customer quota. We are not convinced by such moronic subterfuges. Surely, people, and Britons at that, can digest stronger meals of advice than this puny and spurious crumb. Surely, we deserve better, not the least because we can do better.

To practice what we have preached, people must know that there are quite a lot of things they can do in fact in order to win their claims besides having to contact a lawyer. In case they filed accident at work claims, for example, they can read the pertinent laws about these kinds of claims, such as The Health and Safety Act. Beyond that, they can also study by themselves exactly how English jurisprudence works, in particular its prudent and well-settled emphasis on precedents. They can even do more. In searching for precedents, whether in the library or in the Internet, they can qualify their research by focusing on landmark cases, since these are the ones whose binding power dominate the rest and compel them into obedience. The doctrine of stare decisis can be mastered by laymen if they are serious enough. This mastery, however, can only be reached if they did more than just to consult a lawyer.

Identity of Facts
That the law is an incurably technical field is a principle enunciated today by two diverse groups but for complementary reasons. On the one hand, we have the armies of lawyers, who in their interest to keep their field closed and restrictive, for its very imperviousness is the source of its power, proclaiming the study and interpretation of the Law as inevitably technical every day and everywhere. On the other hand, we see the swarms of pusillanimous claimants who slink behind their lawyers’ backs, eagerly agreeing because they are incapable and unwilling to flex their backbones and exercise their privilege and right to legal empowerment. The first cannot bear to make the Law open because their status would concomitantly suffer with such an expansion; the second because their weak constitutions would crack under the weight of the responsibility of acting as real human beings.

We cannot support either. Lawyers and claimants must both make the Law more accessible and known because only then will it cease to be a possibly unjust force. Whether in demanding accident at work claims or whiplash claims, both groups must understand that it is in the interest of the society for them to shred their arrogance and inhibitions.

This is especially true for claimants. They must know the Law to protect themselves from unethical lawyers. For example, they should study just exactly how precedents establish binding power because in a Common Law system such as ours, the courts retrospect in order to reach a decision.