Hmmm.... Could be worth watching closely http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 216217.stm
Jeff Jones wrote:
If the claimant wins, it will only set a precedent in Scotland, not England and Wales. Different legal system.
We'll have more on this when the case is decided.http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ages-14298
There is no precedent to set. Itrs already established law that if you owe a duty of care to someone and they suffer loss as a result of a breach, then you are liable.
It is already established that road users owe a duty of care to other road users.
The fact that they were riding in the same group is nothing new.
It is not a precedent setting case. All that is at issue here is whether the defendant was negligent. There is no dispute that the defendant owed a duty of care to the others in the group.
You are all seemingly making this case out to be something it isn't
Any ideas what this blokes injuries are?
£370,000 is an awful lot of money and although not a full photo, he does appear to be walking, and in some form of health - no signs of dribble on his suit.
Perhaps he ought to take up tiddlywinks or draughts instead, but i suppose he may be disposed to sue an opponent for tunnel carpel syndrome or RSI.
Well. He lost the case, thank goodness!!
I'm waiting for someone to suggest that there should be "2 second" chevrons painted along every cycle lane.....
To spen666, how can this be related to duty of care? Assuming that riding a bike on a public road is subject to the same legislation, then surely the precedent is the Road Traffic Act which requires all road users to pay due care and attention to the vehicle in front: if you hit them it's your fault whatever the mitigating circumstances. The driver in front has no liability in the form of duty of care to ensure the driver behind doesnt hit him.
"Excuse me do you mind if I execute an emergency stop?" just wouldnt work would it? Duty of care is not the same as common courtesy.