On 22/06/2019 15:38, Modesty wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:46:10 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement
he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and
concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists.
But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need
for caution and restraint is good for society in general?
Better still, what about emphasising the importance of the sheer
irresponsibility and danger of wearing headphones and blindly walking
across a road without even looking endangering other road users!
Her stupidity initiated and caused the accident.
People seem to be getting a bit mixed up here and conflating
responsibility/compensation and costs.
The verdict was one of 50/50 responsibility and in line with other
such claims in the past.
"Shanti Mauger found against Mr Hazeldean and said he was jointly
responsible for the accident.
(That should be 'She ruled' because Judge Shanti Mauger is a woman,
but that doesn't materially change the point you are making.)
...[Hazeldean] was liable to pay 50 per cent of Ms Brushett’s
compensation claim because “cyclists must be prepared at all times for
people to behave in unexpected ways”. While describing him as “a calm
and reasonable road user”, he went on to add: “Mr Hazeldean did fall
below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in
that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.”
After a personal injury compensation battle lasting over three years
he said: “The appropriate finding is that the parties were equally
responsible and I make a finding of liability at 50/50.”
Any award the pedestrian may get will therefore be reduced by 50% to
take into account her blameworthyness.
Given that Hazeldean seems ta have shouted and blown his gerroutofmy
way air horn before reducing speed some might think he did fairly well
out of this decision.
The allocation of blame contains an element for “causative potency” ,
something cycling organisations have been furiously lobbying in
support of for years (at least until they realised that the number of
pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists is at an all time high and
it was being used against cyclists). Causative potency is the
allocation of greater responsibility to act safely to the party with
the greatest ability to cause harm.
The confounding issues in this case seem to be that the cyclist failed
to put in a counter claim and also elected to act for himself in court
without seeking legal advice. With no counter claim he could not be
awarded any damages for his own injuries (which in a 50/50 ruling he
could have expected. It also exposed him to large claims for costs
from the claimants legal team. By the time he decided to employ his
own solicitors he had lost the ability to limit his liability for
costs or damages (although his solicitors are now going to claim the
cost demanded are an abuse of process when the damages are going to be
far less than the costs demanded).
It seems on what has so far been reported) that the judgment was fair
and the exposure to the vast costs (which may yet be held to be
excessive) was in large part due to the cyclist choosing not to take
timely legal advice in the first instance and then choosing to defend
So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.
Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?
Who cares? Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance. If only he
could be banned from the road as well.