Author Topic: The case law thread  (Read 19311 times)

Tourist Tony

  • Supermassive mobile flesh-toned black hole
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2011, 02:28:12 pm »
EF, you will be responsible because you were not in a car.

Re: The case law thread
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2011, 02:44:57 pm »
recent case from a court of first instance - Can't see it being appealed as it appears to make sense.

http://www.kennedys-law.com/liabilityforcyclistinjuries/

Re: The case law thread
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2011, 12:04:50 pm »


Another recent Case - very interesting for those who have Highways issues and also club riders.

http://cycling.access-legal.co.uk/2011/08/injured-cyclist-case-will-prompt-local-authorities-to-amend-road-inspection-policies-.html


Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2011, 11:42:36 pm »
Whilst you're at it, perhaps you could have a word with your company and ask why they think using scare tactics with kids is a good idea?

Tacky to say the least.  Shoosmiths is off my list of reputable firms of solicitors...
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Re: The case law thread
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2011, 09:15:58 am »
My response is detailed on the comment thread 18th August.

The helmet part of the sessions is only a very small part of what is delivered and it's unfortunate that those voicing their opinions have not seen any of the sessions.

Many of the schools that we visited either discourage cycling by not having any facilities for bikes or have a 'mandatory' helmet policy for pupils wishing to cycle in. With that in mind, should we be invited in again I'd be happy to say yes, talk about the very basics of what helmets are designed to do, talk about the basics of the brain because I would rather see children cycling to school than delivered to school by car from circa 2 miles away.

Oaky

  • ACME Fire Safety Officer
  • Audax Club Mid-Essex
    • MEMWNS Map
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2011, 12:53:39 am »
That "egg-helmet" is cute.   It deserves it's own mini series:-

Perhaps somebody could film what happens to an egg in a car accident with and without the "egg-helmet".

And while they're at it, film the egg being run over by a car or skip lorry, again with and without the "egg-helmet".
You are in a maze of twisty flat droves, all alike.

85.4 miles from Marsh Gibbon

Audax Club Mid-Essex Fire Safety Officer
http://acme.bike

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2011, 06:40:34 am »
Overtaking and filtering........how do you define it?

Biggsy

  • A bodge too far
  • Twit @iceblinker
    • My stuff on eBay
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2011, 09:32:41 am »
My response is detailed on the comment thread 18th August.

The helmet part of the sessions is only a very small part of what is delivered and it's unfortunate that those voicing their opinions have not seen any of the sessions.

Many of the schools that we visited either discourage cycling by not having any facilities for bikes or have a 'mandatory' helmet policy for pupils wishing to cycle in. With that in mind, should we be invited in again I'd be happy to say yes, talk about the very basics of what helmets are designed to do, talk about the basics of the brain because I would rather see children cycling to school than delivered to school by car from circa 2 miles away.

It doesn't matter how small the helmet part is of the sessions when you are being grossly misleading and leaving the kids with the impression that their brain will be protected just as well as the helmet model protects an egg in your demonstrations (regardless of any additional verbal explanation, because they will only remember the practical demonstration).

It would be better not to mention helmets at all than to give the impression that they provide more protection than they do.  You need to know about the risk compensation factor.

I too will not be using your company because of this issue.
●●●  My eBay items  ●●●  Twitter  ●●●

Re: The case law thread
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2012, 04:32:34 pm »

Finally got round to having a good look at the case of Malasi v Attmed 2011. The red light jumping cyclist who still managed to recover some damages.

Breaking the judgment down somewhat the points of interest are as follows;

- Mr Malasi was cycling apparently with his head down when he jumped a red light

- A taxi, driven by Mr Attmed, was travelling across the same junction having gone through a green light travelling between 41-50 mph in a 30mph zone.

- The court heard that there would have been no accident at all if the cyclists had stopped at the red signal, and/or reduced his speed by less than half a second, and or if he had even looked out for the driver as he went through the junction

- However, the accident would also have been avoided if the taxi had not been ''Gloriously in excess of the speed limit''

- liability split 80/20 in favour of the taxi driver.


An interesting point during arguments rested on the fact that the cyclist was wearing 'dark' clothes. Much was made of this by Attmeds Counsel. While it may not be a binding comment the Judges position on this is encouraging:

Judge Seymour in the High Court.

'' In Circumstances where the [driver] had had a good perception response time, the fact that [the cyclist] had not been wearing a hi-visibility vest, and had been wearing dark clothing, was immaterial''

Re: The case law thread
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2012, 04:37:32 pm »

Further development on the case of Phetean – Hubble v Coles

The Defendant appealed on a number of points, The claimant cyclist cross appealed and teh judgment from teh court of appeal was published this week.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/349.html

In short:

In the origianl case  HHJ Wilcox found in favour of the cyclist subject to a deduction for contributory negligence. He found that in leaving the pavement and hoping onto the road the cyclist should be found to be 50% responsible. However, as he was a minor at the time of the accident this was reduced to a one third deduction.


The original finding as to the defendants speed was appealed by both parties. The cyclist seeking a finding that the speed was faster than established, and the Defendant seeking a finding that it was slower than established. I think unsurprisingly, that in the absence of any additional evidence – The original finding in respect of the Defendants speed was upheld – They also upheld the finding that a safe speed in the circumstances would have been 26/27 MPH – some 10% lower than the 30mph speed limit.

The court also confirmed a finding that had the defendant have been travelling at 26/27 mph, the collision would not have happened and upheld the decision that the Defendants excessive speed had caused the cyclists injuries

At this stage therefore the Court of Appeal had upheld all of the original Judges findings, however more importantly for child cyclists was the Courts final finding.

HHJ Wilcox originally found the cyclist to be 50% contributory negligent but reduced this to one third because it was deemed to be just and equitable to do so for a child.

During the appeal process the Court discussed the level of contributory negligence as the Defendant argued that the cyclist should be dealt with as if he was an adult.

The Court agreed and allowed this aspect of the appeal, increasing the contributory negligence from one third to 50%.



RJ

  • Droll rat
Re: The case law thread
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2013, 01:04:21 pm »
Here's one from the Court of Session:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013CSOH111.html

Quote
Conclusion
This was a relatively simple case about a man who fell off his bicycle. A lot of time was spent in analysing an event which must have lasted no more than a minute or two. The difficulty for me has been that there were no independent eye witnesses and little other evidence to assist me. I gave very careful consideration to the submission of Mr Dawson that the onus was on the pursuer and if I was left in a situation where neither account could be preferred, I must assoilzie the defenders. I accept that would be my duty. However, I have concluded that the balance of probabilities decisively favours the pursuer. He was an experienced cyclist, well used to travelling on this road and cycling in ideal conditions. I did not accept the defenders' theory that he hit the kerb; that seemed highly unlikely. Whatever criticisms may be made of the pursuer's evidence, he has been consistent as to the reason for his accident. I did not accept the suggestion, though only I think tentatively made, that even as he was making his statement to PC Collins he was considering compensation. The first defender's* admission that when he first observed the pursuer he was in mid somersault, supports the evidence of the pursuer that the first defender did not see him when he first looked right. I accepted the pursuer's evidence that he landed on the ground in the junction close to the offside kerb. In those circumstances, it seems to me clear that the first defender was not looking out for cyclists such as the pursuer, that he braked later than he should have done and conveyed the impression that he might not stop at the junction. Accordingly, he put the pursuer in a position where he had no option but to apply his brakes suddenly causing him to come off his bicycle and sustain the injury. The first defender had a duty of care to look out for other road users, including cyclists. He failed to exercise that duty.

* - the "first defender" was the driver; the "second defender" the dirver's employer.