De Broglio Attorneys have become known for standing their ground, sticking up for their clients’ best interests and not capitulating to unreasonable settlement offers.
This was evident in the recent case of Michael le Roux*, who was involved in a car accident in 2007 and lodged a claim with the Road Accident Fund (RAF).
In February 2007, Le Roux was travelling along the R554 and approaching his house. He stopped his car and indicated that he intended to turn right into his property. There were two stationary cars behind him, waiting for him to turn. However, another driver overtook these two vehicles and collided with Le Roux’s car as he was turning into his driveway.
De Broglio lodged an RAF claim on Le Roux’s behalf but three months before the trial was due to begin, they were informed that the other driver had also instituted a claim.
They met with his attorneys to try and settle the merits of the case – which party was to blame for the accident, and to what extent – but failed to reach an agreement, despite the de Broglio legal team proposing a generous 50/50 split which was rejected.
The RAF decided to consolidate the two claims into one case, which was set down for hearing on 30 June 2009 in order for the judge to rule on where the majority of negligence lay. Later, in July, during a pre-trial conference, de Broglio’s 50/50 offer was again rejected.
However, on the day of the trial the other driver’s legal team indicated that it could not proceed and Judge Joffe stood the matter down in order for the issues to be resolved between the two sets of lawyers.
Eventually, after much to-ing and fro-ing, the other driver’s counsel did an inexplicable about-turn and made an offer on the merits of the case of 70/30 in Le Roux’s favour. This meant that their client had finally conceded that he was at least 70% to blame for the accident, and Le Roux only 30%.
This admission of negligence marked a victory for de Broglio’s team, which had been tenacious and persistent in digging in their heels for their client, who they were convinced was not principally responsible for the collision.
A new trial date has been applied for, when both parties will submit their respective claims against the RAF.
*Names have been changed to protect client confidentiality