Accident with little material damage

We explain what happens in the case of an accident with little material damage through a real example of a case carried out in AyT Accidente y Traffic.

Faustino suffered an accident while traveling as the driver of his vehicle, being stopped at a traffic light, suffering a rear reach. He made the corresponding friendly part, where the opposite driver assumed the fault of the accident.

This type of rear reaches are the most common, and have a very wide range of compensation depending on the evolution of the injured as well as the treatment carried out and if he needed sick leave or not, and can range from € 1000 to € 10,000 , although there are cases where the injuries are complicated and can rise to much higher amounts depending on the sequelae.

Regarding the injuries, D. Faustino suffered a neck pain diagnosed in the hospital where he attended three hours after the accident. Later, and as he did not improve, he began rehabilitating treatment in one of the multiple centers that are arranged within the UNESPA agreement .

Because her recovery was slow and she began to suffer dizziness and paresthesia in her fingers, it was recommended that she request an MRI that confirmed a protrusion in C5-C6, C6-C7. Said injuries took 75 days to heal, of which 30 were impairment and 45 were healing, leaving a sequel of aggravation of the previous state in the cervical area valued at 2 points. Said assessment was carried out by the Court’s Forensic Doctor. Their economic valuation was € 4,655.95 as the injured man was 43 years old at the time of the accident.

The compensation was not paid out of court by the insurance company , since they did not agree that said impact will generate the injuries included in the Forensic Health Report of D. Faustino. Mapfre maintained that the damages were scarce in both vehicles, for which they alleged lack of causal link.

The material damages were appraised at € 350 which were paid and repaired at the expense of the opposite company Mapfre. The company maintained that the necessary whiplash mechanism could not be generated to generate the injuries with such little material damage, even attributing said injuries to before the accident.

Faustino came to see us for advice a week after the accident, so he could be advised both medically and legally, he was recommended to carry out the rehabilitative treatment in view of the lack of improvement, and likewise, when the symptoms began to worsen He recommended having an MRI to clear up any doubts.

Once the results had been obtained, it was recommended that he request a background report from his family doctor in the cervical area, in order to justify to the opposing company that he had not suffered injuries, nor did he have any symptoms prior to the accident.

Subsequently, a complaint was filed in the corresponding Court, who required him to appear after two months in order for the forensic doctor to assess the injuries, and once the forensic report was obtained, it was sent to the company, who refused to pay for it. that he did not have to be defended in court.

The company went with a Traumatologist and an Accident Reconstructor Expert to try to explain to the Judge that the impact was of low intensity and that it could not cause injuries of any kind. The traumatologist explained that these injuries could perfectly be degenerative injuries that were produced by age and not by the accident.

From our position we defended the Forensic Medical Report, the statement of the forensic was requested, who was ratified in his report thanks to the medical certificate that included that he had not previously suffered symptoms in the cervical area.

It was possible to verify and thus the judge was told that the traumatologist had not explored the injured person and that the accident reconstruction report did not include the position of the headrest, nor did it take into account weight, age and medical documentation.

Nor do insurers say anything about the fact that today’s vehicles are designed to avoid structural damage as much as possible , but that nonetheless means that it is not the vehicle that absorbs the force of the impact, but its components. occupants, so the injuries are greater despite the fact that the damage has been scarce.

The ruling sentenced Mapfre to pay the compensation in full, plus interest.

This is a clear example that companies take advantage of their position of power by having more means than the victims , to defend their positions, and yet with good advice and expert lawyers in the field, the injured can be defended.

This type of conflict is a very common case, and more so now because of the crisis, when insurers do not pay compensation alleging lack of causal link, and considering that we all heal the same, treating the injured as a more mathematical than physical element, using statistics and not medical documents.

Despite this, there are some Judges who consider this position of the companies, so we always advise victims to go as soon as possible to seek advice from specialist lawyers, to prepare in advance the defense in case the material damages have been scarce.