I agree with the other points. that's why i referred originally to the driver's 3rd party liability insurance.
0 CHF is an option. We don't know which franchise the OP's child has.
Children always have a CHF 0 deductable, there is no other option for them.
Tom
According the posted information from Helasana there is such an option:
https://www.helsana.ch/en/individual...ent-consist-of
(You can change language from Englisch, to German, French and Italian )
Ours isn't. Bloody hell, I'll have to check that out.
My boy got a smack on the head whilst skiing last year and had to get checked out at the local hospital. We had to cough up CHF 250.- for the pleasure.
Our kids have no franchise .. With Helsana.
So we can simply hit someone we hate here because its easy to pay and charge it all to the insurance company...its not about money but my daughter life will never be the same again...
I think the law changed a few years ago. With Swica you can have 0, 200, 400 or 600 CHF franchise for children.
No. Because deliberately injuring someone is a criminal offence. You said it was an accident
Why is that? Has she been permanently disabled in some way? If she has psychological issues, then take her to a psychologist or psychiatrist. Her getting money won't make her feel any better - though you might feel happier about it. The driver will certainly have some big fines to pay - that won't be covered by her insurance.
I don't think its classed as an accident then
Is that the medical view? If she is seriously going to be affected, i.e. her leg won't function properly for the rest of her life, then you need to go through the proper channels. Do you have legal coverage?
Running into someone deliberately is never going to work out the same as an accident would.
What became of the person that ran into your daughter? Presumably the police were involved and, after an investigation, they concluded it was just an accident. Had there been any mal-intent or negligence it would have shown up in the investigation.
Did your daughter run across the pedestrian crossing without looking and the driver simply had no time to stop or was the driver found to be speeding or on his phone or drunk?
how??
whys that relevant ?
Accident insurance isn't relevant here to begin with, the driver's 3rd party liability insurance is what counts.
OP why did you employ a lawyer? All it's likely to accomplish is an increase in your costs.
You daughter's life will probably be the same again if you let it and dial down the drama a few notches. Many kids have accidents, quite a lot of them leading to lengthy treatment, missing school, etc. And yet, life goes on.
Any ongoing cafe will be paid for by your accident insurance. They will also assess the suffering and long term effects of the injury and pay you compensation for that, as well as any other expenses such as loss of (your) earnings. Such cost will normally be recouped by them from the drivers insurance.
If the driver was at fault then it's up to the police to take any action required, and they nearly always do, with the burden of proof being skewed against the driver, who will usually be assumed to be at fault unless there are external factors involved.
if it happened like you say, she was hit on a crossing, then the driver is royally f***ed, he is in for serious amounts of pain, huge fines, banned from driving could also spend some time in prison.
just because the law says you can cross doesn't mean you should, it constantly amazes me the amount of people who blindly cross the road here, not bothering to look at all, because they can. Its a valuable life lesson learnt I think.
That would clearly not be an accident.
How so? Is that a qualified medical view or an opinion based on your (over)dramatization of this incident?
None of us was there when it happened so hard to judge I would say.
A friend of mine broke her leg at a similar age in an ice skating ring and her injury was so severe she still suffers from that now as an adult. And yes she was not able to go to school for quite some time and it had an impact on her life.
We all make it sound like the mother (=OP) only wants to get financial benefit out of this accident but I find it very feasible that her daughter might be traumatized by this event and it is fair to say that her mother knows this best as she takes care of her daughter every single day. If she says her daughter is suffering then we have to believe that and not just class it as an overreaction.
I guess the OP by now has the answers to her questions in any case.
What's it about then, exactly?
Take money out of the equation, as you say.. What else do you actually want to happen?
Your daughter should be receiving every bit of medical care required for as long as it takes, even for-ever, you should be compensated for any loss of earnings, your insurers will pay any extra costs you've had.
The driver will have been prosecuted if deemed necessary.
What do you think is missing from the story?
Its not about the money
its not you, it me
I'm not a racist but ....
the cheques in the post
I'll still love you in the morning
.....
Found this also (seems to be only in French and German, but call them anyway - they probably speak some English:
http://www.roadcross.ch/site/notre-fondation/
Best of luck, don't listen to the haters.
haters? just telling it like it is, there is no suing culture here (thanks god) having an accident here isn't a golden goose, the driver WILL be punished, the child WILL be looked after, but there ain't no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.