Talk about compensation culture.Hope this guy gets all that is coming to him 
Click on top story.
An Aberdeen man who risked his life to save a road crash victim is suing the man he went to rescue for £100,000.
Bert Mowat vaulted a crash barrier and dropped down a 20ft embankment in an effort to save Darren Hendry from the cab of his articulated lorry after it plunged into an Aberdeen river.
Believing the 31-year-old lorry driver’s life was at risk, the window fitter broke his heel in the incident.
Now solicitors acting on behalf of Mr Mowat, 56, have raised a civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
They are claiming damages and compensation of £100,000 as a result of the accident on October 5, last year. Neither party was available to comment on the action last night.
However a spokesman for the firm representing Mr Mowat confirmed the claim was connected to the accident.
He said the law concerning rescues and rescuers was an incredibly complex area.
When the accident happened, Mr Mowat, of Menzies Road, Torry, had been walking home from a cardiac relaxation class following a heart attack six weeks previously.
He said he saw Mr Hendry’s lorry smash through the barriers at the roundabout junction of North Esplanade West and South College Street and plunge nose-first into the River Dee.
Speaking just after the accident he said: “I got out my phone and jumped the parapet. I knew right away I’d done damage when I landed.”
Mr Mowat also told how he could see Mr Hendry’s cab, its nose suspended over the water, but couldn’t move to help him. At the time he said: “I tried to move and it was really sore and I rolled over one more time then didn’t move again until the paramedics arrived.”
Mr Hendry managed to struggle free from the vehicle, his face covered in blood. He was transferred to an RNLI dinghy before being taken to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. The lorry driver, of Balnagask Road, Torry, was kept in hospital for two days and was treated for a broken jaw and chest injuries.
He later appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and admitted careless driving. The court was told an overhead locker in the cab had opened, allowing a cooking stove to fall out, and he lost control of the vehicle. The father-of-one was fined £300 and had nine penalty points put on his driving licence.
Under totting up, Mr Hendry was banned for six months because he already had three points on his licence. He handed in his notice to his employers immediately after the accident, saying he was too scared to drive a lorry again.
Right, so let me get this right : Bloke driving lorry took roundabout too fast or whatever and his stove fell out of overhead locker and [zb] (capital T) him on the head causing him to lose control and career through barrier in the river below. Good samaritan sees all this happening and runs over, vaults himself over the barrier into mid air, true James Bond style and then breaks his heel on landing and is now trying to sue the driver who’s stove [zb] him on the head for it for a tenth of a mil ? But since when did the lorry driver ask James Bond for his help? It’ll get thrown out of court straight away. I just don’t see a connection, sorry. 
Rob K:
Right, so let me get this right : Bloke driving lorry took roundabout too fast or whatever and his stove fell out of overhead locker and [zb] (capital T) him on the head causing him to lose control and career through barrier in the river below. Good Samaritan sees all this happening and runs over, vaults himself over the barrier into mid air, true James Bond style and then breaks his heel on landing and is now trying to sue the driver who’s stove [zb] him on the head for it for a tenth of a mil ? But since when did the lorry driver ask James Bond for his help? It’ll get thrown out of court straight away. I just don’t see a connection, sorry.
I agree with you Rob, how on earth does his lawyer (who is expecting to get a good wedge out of this) come to the conclusion that “The Bloke driving the Lorry” is at fault for “James Bond” breaking his heel■■? 
.
Who asked James Bond to rescue him, what a Banker, i know it will be asking to much but lets hope it goes to court and the driver has a sensible judge, and up goes our insurance again,
Surely someone should be sueing the makers of the gas stove (unstable),
or the truck manufacturer (defective locker), or the haulier (poor maintenance), or the road engineers (bad roundabout), or the crash barrier manufacturer (trades descriptions act), or the would be rescuer (trespass)(unlicensed flying), or the river (wet), or the driver’s wife (failing to provide sandwiches), or the driver (being a lorry driver, the most serious of all these crimes), or the…or the… 
The world’s gone mad
Ah! It’s the world’s fault 
.
Salut, David.
Spardo:
Surely someone should be sueing the makers of the gas stove (unstable),
or the truck manufacturer (defective locker), or the haulier (poor maintenance), or the road engineers (bad roundabout), or the crash barrier manufacturer (trades descriptions act), or the would be rescuer (trespass)(unlicensed flying), or the river (wet), or the driver’s wife (failing to provide sandwiches), or the driver (being a lorry driver, the most serious of all these crimes), or the…or the…
Very funny Dave, but unbelievably true. 
On a more serious note.
The would be rescuer is a hero. Despite recovering from a heart attack he put himself at considerable risk to save a life.
But why oh why did he have to spoil it and take advantage? Simple compensation for his lost working time (I’m assuming window fitting is not strenuous enough to have kept him off work already) would have been fair.
Leaves a bad taste about our modern times.
Salut, David.
That is absolutly shocking 
simon
whoever the lawyer is who took this case on ought to be struck off.
Im going to sue Russell Hobbs because I just burnt myself on a hot kettle 
Wheel Nut:
whoever the lawyer is who took this case on ought to be struck off.Im going to sue Russell Hobbs because I just burnt myself on a hot kettle
You’ve got no chance as you don’t live in the USA.
Was considering emigrating and taking up smoking .
Salut, David.
Talking of lawyer/ sueing/ compensation etc etc…
Dont know if its true and may be an old story but got a chuckle from me.
A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars,
then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having
smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having
made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim
against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost in a series of small
fires. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that
the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued … and WON! (Stay with the story)
In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that
the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer
“held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars
were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire,
without defining what is considered to be unacceptable fire” and was
obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal
process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the
lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the “fires.”
NOW FOR THE BEST PART…
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on
24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the
previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of
intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in
jail and a $24,000 fine.
This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal
Lawyers Award Contest.
Denis has already posted a link debunking the cigar story. For actual, true stories about stupid cases, go to www.StellaAwards.com .
Oops. Double post.
the sad thing is he will proberley get away with it…
dont know he got the figure £100,000