Author Topic: Pedestrian on the phone  (Read 7789 times)

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #100 on: June 25, 2019, 04:27:40 pm »
I read yesterday that £110,000 was the amount he'd been required to pay in costs - and yes it's the costs of bringing the case - not the amount of compensation.  It's because he didn't countersue and was uninsured, as said - his team are indeed appealing this - it's this appeal that is being crowdfunded.


I'll see if I can re-track it down, though I think it just cropped up on my phone's newsfeed.
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #101 on: June 25, 2019, 06:30:10 pm »
Cyclingweekly is quoting a much smaller legal cost.  I am still confused as to whether he has to pay all the legal or half (as its 50-50 liability).  I would have assumed half based on the ruling.
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #102 on: June 25, 2019, 09:29:50 pm »
It seems mildly insane that a small case could cost £100k. I think there's a bit of bluffery. According to what I've read, costs have yet to be awarded and presumably, as far as I understand*, will be split.

*which I probably don't.
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #103 on: June 25, 2019, 10:42:11 pm »
I *believe* that costs are being talked about as *up to* £100k, but that the judge in the case was muttering about £10k, and presumably has the power to decide what will actually be awarded, so it's reasonable to assume that hisher award will be in line with hisher mutterings.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #104 on: June 26, 2019, 12:11:56 am »
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.

Or, in this case, hers.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #105 on: June 26, 2019, 12:17:50 am »
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.

Or, in this case, hers.

Indeed - apologies, and corrected.

(Lazy, lazy language on my part.)

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #106 on: June 26, 2019, 09:58:39 am »
So it looks like the £100k tag is just there to sell papers?
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #107 on: June 26, 2019, 10:01:22 am »
I think it's shock value.

But anyway, even at £10k, for £8k damages award cut by half, that's not exactly good value unless an insurance company is paying the bill.

I still they've have been better both learning from the experience and getting on with their lives (and I speak as someone who's experienced extensive legal dealings over an accident).
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #108 on: June 26, 2019, 02:07:14 pm »
The barrister for the claimant reports the costs in this twitter thread with Martin Porter:-

https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752

Martin Porter: "Thanks Nye. Are press reports of seeking £100k costs accurate? Thx."

Aneurin Moloney: "Something like £95k I think. A bit more to it here too; case had been run for 4 years, D was LiP for 3 years and living in France, 3 expert witnesses (and D submitted we should have used more), 2 day trial....."

...

Aneurin Moloney: "For completeness, I think that D’s own legal costs were in the region of £18,000. He had representation from October 2018 (i.e. 8 to 9 months) after the Defence had already been served."

(C = claimant, D = defendant)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #109 on: June 26, 2019, 04:18:35 pm »
Blimey, £95k and four years (!) effort for a 2-day trial and £8k damage award (cut by half).

The legal world is weirder than I thought.

!nataS pihsroW

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2019, 12:21:53 pm »
100k still seems crazy.  If you hired someone on 25k for 4 years to do nothing but this case.  Surely the ~10 people involved in this don't get paid 10k each for the number of full days they actually spent on this case.
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2019, 01:14:42 pm »
To be fair, while it seems crazy to the layperson, it is at least cheaper and more effective than management consulting.
!nataS pihsroW

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2019, 10:55:45 pm »
Yeahbut management consultants get paid by big money companies.
[/I could be wrong]

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2019, 09:11:45 am »
I think this is a tragic case all round.
But a litigant in person is an idiot. I suspect most of the costs were from his delays and misunderstandings. 3 expert witnesses will have added a lot to the costs. There will have been at least a neurologist, a plastic surgeon and a a dental surgeon. Each of those would have charged £1k for their initial report plus costs for any other letters, conferences, etc. Then each of them would have been on £2.5k for each day in court. At a 2 day hearing you already have £20k in expert costs.

If he had used his household insurance this would have never reached court and been settled by in house lawyers for about £3k.

The claimant had offered to settle for less than she was finally awarded. That is why she got costs   If she had been awarded less than her part 36 offer she would have had to pay her solicitors costs.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2019, 01:48:26 pm »
Just in case people are not aware, this very busy crossing, on the northern side of Cannon Street at the juction of King William Street, hasn't got lights for pedestrians.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.51110/-0.08700

this vid shows the crossing with the camera facing west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ywiHP8iyQ

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #115 on: March 01, 2020, 10:18:49 pm »
https://road.cc/content/news/271489-london-cyclist-found-jointly-liable-crash-pedestrian-gets-ps60k-plus-bill

Quote
Mr Hazeldean announced on a Twitter thread this morning: "It's not the result I was hoping for, but I do at least feel free of it now." The crowdfunder raised £59,643, and after everything was paid on both sides this swallowed up all of that money plus an extra £2,979 Hazeldean had to cover himself. Hazeldean's costs came to £25,122, Brushett's costs were settled for £30,000, the GoFundMe crowdfunder fees came to £2,766, and the damages were £4,300 with £434 interest.

Quote
Initially Brushett's lawyers wanted £112,000 costs, but settled at £30,000.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #116 on: March 03, 2020, 11:55:12 am »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

Not the result I was expecting.

Despite speeding and riding an illegal vehicle, the jury decided looking before crossing a road was more important.

It's nothing worth celebrating, but at least there is some sense left and people aren't prosecuted simply for riding bicycles as it would seem in other cases.

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #117 on: March 03, 2020, 12:04:49 pm »
The victim in that incident didn't just not look - it looked to me like a suicide attempt (sadly successful).  Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.  If it was a suicide attempt then choosing a bike to run under is not the option of choice.


The guy on the bike didn't do himself any favours though.  He's very lucky to get away with the rest of it.


Sad case as these always are.  :(
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #118 on: March 03, 2020, 12:11:00 pm »
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.

I think this is on the ha-ha-only-serious list of "weird hearing people habits", like talking to people from the next room and looking away mid conversation.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #119 on: March 03, 2020, 12:12:48 pm »
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.

Round these parts Darwin tends to cull those people...

J
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2020, 04:26:46 pm »
Some people do just use their ears to cross the road rather than their eyes I've noticed.

I think this is on the ha-ha-only-serious list of "weird hearing people habits", like talking to people from the next room and looking away mid conversation.

My pet hate, people trying to have a conversation with me from another room or whilst walking away from me into another room.  I've got bolshie about it and pretend not to hear (which can also be partly true, especially if I'm not listening).
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens