A pedestrian gets hits by a cyclist. The case goes to court and the
judge decides that because the pedestrian was using her phone and not
looking-out when she stepped into the road to cross, she must accept
50% of the blame for a resulting collision with the cyclist. The judge
also accepts that the cyclist is a "calm and reasonable road user" and
at the time of the crash was not cycling aggressively nor recklessly.

Still, however, the judge rules that the cyclist must pay the
pedestrian thousands of pounds in compensation (the case will return
to court at a later date for the amount of compensation to be
decided).

How can that be right? If the pedestrian was 50% at fault for the
accident how can the cyclist's fault be the greater?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a4169716.html