My Court Case

Tom.
I am so pleased with the result of your case.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the defendant went as far as going to
court. Having been in a similar situation myself after being knocked off my
bike on 16 November 2006 I was also fortunate in having an excellent witness.
I remember the lady driver at the time saying things like " I didn't see
him", "I didn't hit him -- he hit me" ( coming towards me she turned directly
across my front at zero feet and I was travelling at about 16- 18 mph). I was
knocked unconscious but my valiant witness had his wits about him and called
police and ambulance -- and got the car details!

But the point I am making is that her solicitors obviously advised her that
she was totally to blame and all that we had to do was negotiate to a
satisfactory settlement. I rigidly followed the advice of my solicitors from
beginning to end ( they were/are very "cycle aware") and they were extremely
helpful from first till last.

Despite the fact that the police were simply not interested since I wasn't
dead it is absolutely essential that they are involved and that an ambulance
is a good beginning to medical evidence.

But in the end your case is settled. --- excellent result.

It is a sad after thought that the driver will presumably just lose his no
claim bonus -- or even not that if he was driving a company vehicle.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
It couldn't have started any worse...

I met my barrister for the first time at 10.15, and her very first
question was, "were you wearing a helmet?" I tried explaining that a
helmet wouldn't have protected my shoulder in any way, but she wasn't
having any of it. "You should always wear a helmet, it will protect
you." I knew my case was lost there and then. I was at fault for a
driver running into me before the case had even begun!

There was worse.

The judge, once we went into court, said, "I don't cycle and you will
never ever see me on a bike."

My claim was that I passed a line of slow moving traffic of the right,
up to 1.5m across the centre line, on the right of the road. There
was no oncoming traffic, and cycling in that position gave me the very
best possible view of the road ahead and gave motorists the very best
possible chance to see me. The lorry pulled suddenly to the right to
reach a parking bay on the right, without looking or indicating, and
struck me. I had no chance to take evasive action.

My witness said something similar.

The contention of the defence was that I followed the lorry down the
road, immediately behind its rear doors, and when it stopped and
indicated right, I pulled out to the right and tried to overtake the
truck, with disasterous consequences. That was the only possible
explaination for the driver checking his mirrors twice and not seeing
me. I should have been on the left, and if I was going to overtake
should have hugged the kerb and overtaken on the inside. To further
back up his claim that I was not visible, the defendent recalled that
an oncoming vehicle flashed him to say, 'the road is clear, I will
wait while you turn.'

All this took 3 hours - yes, three hours...

We had a 15 minute recess.

After the recess the judge reiterated his previous comment:
"I don't cycle and you will never ever see me on a bike." He went
on... "I can fully understand why a prudent and skilled cyclist would
cycle on the right of slow moving or stationary traffic." He went on
to recount my evidence of why I overtook on the left, car doors, left
turning vehicles, better visibility, etc., etc., etc. "That is not to
say that the defendent is lying, but as he clearly didn't see the
claimant, he is in no position to come to the conclusion that the
claimant was immediately behind him."

"The claimant is very clear that the driver was not indicating when he
started his overtaking manoeurve, the defendent says that he started
indicating immediately after looking in his mirror for the first time.
However, the defendent didn't see the claimant so cannot say where the
claimant was at the time he started to signal. I am therefore minded
to take the claimant's version of events. I can see no reason why an
experienced cyclist, as the claimant certainly is, would start to
overtake a vehicle that was indicating right, and the claimant would
most certainly have had an excellent view of the defendent's
indicators if, as the defendent caims, he was immediately behind his
vehicle."

"The defendent says that he was in the middle of the road, signalling
right, for some 30 seconds, before making his turn, and that he made
his turn after checking in his mirrors for a second time. ( I do not
accept the claimant's counsel's claim that the driver should have
looked over his shoulder, the defendent's mirrors should have
sufficed.) I cannot believe that the defendent was stationary in the
middle of the road for as long as 30 seconds, and this contradicts his
earlier statement to the police which describes one continuous
manoeuvre, and makes no mention of a wait in the middle of the road. I
also do not believe that the defendent's vehicle was to the right of
the centre line. The witness clearly describes the van being to the
left of the centre line as does the claimant."

"Mr Crispin's evidence has been clear and he has also made it
absolutely clear when he is making assuptions, for example, Mr Crispin
said 'when I started to overtake the vehicle wasn't signalling, and I
don't think that it was signalling when it hit me.' [The defense
counsel had made much of that fact that I was vague about certain
points.] Likewise the defendent has also given clear evidence, but he
has stated with ablosute certainty things that he cannot know. For
example, he stated that the claimant was immediately behind him prior
to the collision. He cannot have known that as he hadn't seen the
cyclist."

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

No further mention was made of magic helmets.


==========TROLL J BAIT==========
I expect some mission poster will pop up and make meaningless claims
about helmets and re-quote some crash statistics without context - and
I hope they do. To contradict a neutral judge, who is clearly pro
motorist, who describes me as *prudent and skilled* will beautifully
highlight the absurdity of their claims.
==========END OF BAIT==========

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:41 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

I am so pleased with the result of your case.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the defendant went as far as going to
court.

My feeling is that they went to court to challenge the fees of my
no-win no-fee solicitors. They were the real winners in this case,
with their fees topping £10,000, a truly staggering sum for what was a
very simple case. I was examined by their doctor and someone came to
my home to take a statement, and that is about it.

Still, it will keep one or two people in employment for a little
longer in these troubled times.

On Nov 13, 4:37*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

Fabulous result!

Good on you for standing your ground.

Calum

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:41 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

I am so pleased with the result of your case.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the defendant went as far as going to
court.

My feeling is that they went to court to challenge the fees of my
no-win no-fee solicitors.

If the defendant had just admitted liability in the first place, how
much lower would the fees have been?

And congratulations.

Trevor A Panther twisted the electrons to say:
It is a sad after thought that the driver will presumably just lose his
no claim bonus -- or even not that if he was driving a company vehicle.

Well, in addition to the lack of their no-claims discount pushing their
insurance premium up they'll also have to answer "yes" to having had an
accident in the past 5 years which should push it up some more.

If they're driving a company vehicle then any further sanctions will
depend on the policies of the company. Someone I used to work with at
the Royal Mail had to move from working as a driver in Distribution to
working, not as a driver, in Delivery after the Royal Mail decided their
driving wasn't good enough.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On 14 Nov 2008 11:12:34 +0000 (GMT)
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

In article , Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:41 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

I am so pleased with the result of your case.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the defendant went as far as
going to court.

My feeling is that they went to court to challenge the fees of my
no-win no-fee solicitors.

If the defendant had just admitted liability in the first place, how
much lower would the fees have been?

If they did so in all similar cases how much more would insurers be
paying out to legitimate claimants? The insurance game is all about
probability, and you can bet they've done their sums. If more
claimants went the full distance the insurers would have to scrutinise
claims more closely, and offer less resistance where they were likely
to be found liable for full damages. As it is most claimants settle
when the offer is "good enough" (i.e. not too derisory) so as far as the
insurers are concerned it's a risk worth taking.

On 13 Nov, 16:37, Tom Crispin
wrote:
It couldn't have started any worse...


I started reading this fully expecting some verdict along the lines of
"well serves you right for being on the road. In fact take him to the
cells right now"

The verdict came as a relief to me ('though not as much as to you, I
bet). Well done. Restores some of my faith in justice.

Peter.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:37:06 +0000
Tom Crispin wrote:

[chop]

First, let me join the chorus of congratulation. Your judge
clearly got it right.

I can see no reason why an
experienced cyclist, as the claimant certainly is,

Just out of interest, do you suppose the judge would've said that
of anyone who claims to be experienced, or did you present all
your credentials and awards to support your case there?

One wonders just how your own credentials weighed in the judge's
mind, and how it might've differed for a regular cyclist with
no specific credentials (like me), or an occasional cyclist
who used to ride more (like some of my friends).

--
not me guv

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:37:06 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

"I find entirely in favour of the claimant. I believe compensation
has been agreed. Is that correct?"

Well done!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:41 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
wrote:

I am so pleased with the result of your case.

The only thing that puzzles me is why the defendant went as far as going
to
court.

My feeling is that they went to court to challenge the fees of my
no-win no-fee solicitors. They were the real winners in this case,
with their fees topping £10,000, a truly staggering sum for what was a
very simple case. I was examined by their doctor and someone came to
my home to take a statement, and that is about it.

As soon as you get a barrister involved, it can get very expensive very
quickly.

I think your case teaches some lessons for any of us who end up in a similar
situation, whichever side we may end up on:
"he has stated with ablosute certainty things that he cannot know".
Lesson: don't make things up, don't extrapolate from what you saw, be
consistent.