Pedestrian Wins Compensation Despite Not Looking
Comments
-
Come on clearly the dog isn't really expressing the view that she deserves to die - it's an expression of surprise and/or disapproval a bit like saying "well b*gger me" - not to be taken literally.
Anyway it's a pretty horrible state of affairs for this chap - I see it mentions 20k to pay but there is also mention of 100k costs - who ends up paying that could it be him too - could it be her ? Gladly I've never been involved in a similar legal situation - much like this guy I think my natural response would be to ignore it and hope it goes away - clearly that isn't the best way to handle these things.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Yes, it's the costs of £100k that she is claiming from him that seems to noone's benefit. Is that her legal costs?? Or does that include damages?
It may be better to go bankrupt than let her solicitors get any money. This whole thing is horrible.0 -
if anyone it is that dreadful woman who deserves the "Jo Brand" treatment.
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
Has anyone seen anything like this happen for car drivers ?
Or is it just cyclists that need to be prepared ?
I think the verdict is probably fair but gutted that the cyclist wasn't advised to countersue.0 -
Interesting that in the listed costs hearing the judge has said the claimant must pay the costs of the cyclist.0
-
It all brings to mind the old courtroom exchange (allegedly genuine):
Judge: "are we to abandon all common sense here then?"
Lawyer "yes m'lud"0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:That woman deserves to die.
you never know. Perhaps the next thing she walks out on will be a little larger.
0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Yes, it's the costs of £100k that she is claiming from him that seems to noone's benefit. Is that her legal costs?? Or does that include damages?
It may be better to go bankrupt than let her solicitors get any money. This whole thing is horrible.
not if he has moved to France and is still a UK citizen,as there are rules/laws in France about having enough sustainable income to avoid becoming a burden on the French state that never used to be so much of a problem till a certain vote a few years ago and are now being scrupulously enforced, declaring yourself bankrupt is probably a bad idea0 -
Well, looking at the way the gofundme page for him had taken off, it looks like he's saved from bankruptcy. As long as the judge sticks to his suggested costs.0
-
Just to give balance to this case the unreported side of the story is:
On the advice of a legal firm and based on witnesses who gave evidence against the cyclist, the young lady was advised to pursue. One of these witnesses, another cyclist was appalled by the way the cyclist was cycling.
The young lady was already crossing the road along with a number of other people. The cyclist was overtaking other cyclists far too quickly. Instead of braking and stopping to allow the pedestrians to cross (as they have right of way when already on the road) as another cyclist did (the witness), he sounded an air horn, which startled everyone and hit her. If it hadn’t been the lady in question it would have been any of a number of pedestrians.
These are the facts which possibly spoil a good piece of journalism?0 -
yellowv2 wrote:Just to give balance to this case the unreported side of the story is:
On the advice of a legal firm and based on witnesses who gave evidence against the cyclist, the young lady was advised to pursue. One of these witnesses, another cyclist was appalled by the way the cyclist was cycling.
The young lady was already crossing the road along with a number of other people. The cyclist was overtaking other cyclists far too quickly. Instead of braking and stopping to allow the pedestrians to cross (as they have right of way when already on the road) as another cyclist did (the witness), he sounded an air horn, which startled everyone and hit her. If it hadn’t been the lady in question it would have been any of a number of pedestrians.
These are the facts which possibly spoil a good piece of journalism?
Actually it was only the other cyclist that gave evidence against him. 3 pedestrian witnesses all said it was the woman’s fault.
I’m not saying that it wasn’t avoidable, but you’re making out like he flew along and ploughed into pedestrians in the middle of the road, which is complete tosh. It only happened because she was so engrossed in her phone that she didn’t have a clue what was around her (whilst crossing a busy road!).
The main point is, in no way does she deserve a single penny of compensation.0 -
I am stating the facts as they are actually are and not simply what has been reported in the press.0
-
Selectively stating only some "facts" & omitting the others.0
-
Not really just giving the side of the story not reported in the newspapers.0
-
yellowv2 wrote:I am stating the facts as they are actually are and not simply what has been reported in the press.
I am neutral on this and have no axe to grind but how do you know the facts? Did you witness this incident yourself or are you simply reporting what you have read?0 -
Do I understand it took a legal team £100k of fees to win less than £5k of actual damages?
Surely she'll need to show invoices to backup the claim for costs?
Hope another outcome of this is a fairer system, seems someone is milking something somewhere!0 -
lesfirth wrote:yellowv2 wrote:I am stating the facts as they are actually are and not simply what has been reported in the press.
I am neutral on this and have no axe to grind but how do you know the facts? Did you witness this incident yourself or are you simply reporting what you have read?[/quote
I didn’t witness it personally but someone I know very well did.0 -
yellowv2 wrote:lesfirth wrote:yellowv2 wrote:I am stating the facts as they are actually are and not simply what has been reported in the press.
I am neutral on this and have no axe to grind but how do you know the facts? Did you witness this incident yourself or are you simply reporting what you have read?
I didn’t witness it personally but someone I know very well did.
Were they a witness in the court case?0 -
No, they weren't a witness in court.0
-
I've only read snippets on this.
The concern I have is the likely precedent this could set.
I once had a collision with a pedestrian crossing without looking, we both changed direction as well ase stopping pedalling and braking. I managed for awhile to stay upright on the downhill but out of control and I finally came off. I suffered more damage/loss. I waited to ensure they were ok and emergency services arrived. I was very much treated with contempt, wasn't offered any medical assistant, my bike was inspected brakes checked etc the pedestrian said they just stepped out without looking, their parent attended the scene and thanked me for waiting....
My bike, clothings and other property were rated as well minor injuries to me...
I was tempted to persue recovery but I chalked it up to experience and nothing further happened.
I did read the cyclist comments around American litigation culture so didn't persue a claim himself however, if he had had legal advice and listened to it then maybe an out of court settlement could have been agreed and the lawyers wouldn't get as big of a paycheck, as well as court cost no doubt.
Bikes don't have ABS or power steering or any other safety features of metal box or need RTA insurance unlike motorists... For me cyclist are just as vonerable as pedestrians especially when on the road.0 -
i think all cyclists should have approved lights, disk brakes, registration plates front and rear clearly visible and insurance.
Helmets should be compulsory as should day glo clothing and the requirement to take a test before using a bike on the road.
Furthermore to encourage safe riding, any collision with a pedestrian should automatically be the fault of the rider and the onus to prove otherwise with the cyclist.0 -
yellowv2 wrote:No, they weren't a witness in court.
Surprising, as it seems like they could have been a valuable witness to the pedestrian's side.0 -
The barristers comments published on road.cc make interesting reading.
The elephant in the room here is the disproportionate costs. Right now two people are each on the hook for £50k. One of them has at least a chance of arguing that this is unreasonably high (the cyclist) but whether this will be outweighed by his own remains to be seen. But come what may, £100k will still be owed.
How in God's name did it get that high? That is at least 200 hours of professional time, even in London. Or about 2-3 months of billable work.0 -
0
-
I won't write too much, because I can't be arsed, but pedestrians routinely win cases against motorists even where they step out, even where there are crossings nearby. What differs is the court's approach to contributory negligence. Essentially there has always been an "imbalance" in relation to whose fault it was or is based on a motor vehicle's propensity for causing greater harm. So it's not unusual to see bonkers pedestrians win but see their damages reduced heavily.
To that extent, this case isn't all that different. If you're a ped you may as well have a go and you're likely to stand a fairly good chance of winning. Road users, whatever they weigh, have to have a 6th sense.
Also, bear in mind, this is a civil case, it's reported because it's a bit novel, but there are loads of cases being brought against drivers every day on facts much like these.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
First Aspect wrote:The barristers comments published on road.cc make interesting reading.
The elephant in the room here is the disproportionate costs. Right now two people are each on the hook for £50k. One of them has at least a chance of arguing that this is unreasonably high (the cyclist) but whether this will be outweighed by his own remains to be seen. But come what may, £100k will still be owed.
How in God's name did it get that high? That is at least 200 hours of professional time, even in London. Or about 2-3 months of billable work.
It is way too high, it's going to be somewhat reduced. One thing not reported is that the Defendant has failed to agree at least 2 part 36 offers (see the Barrister's note) so he's going to be hammered because of that.
I can't see an award of costs approaching what has been claimed. But it IS going to be high because of how Part 36 works. Basically it shifts everything back on the loser for not settling. Costs are now on an indemnity basis which pretty much means you end up paying way more of them than on a standard basis. Plus loads of other crap.
See here for a guide:
https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-ins ... --part-36/
I have a lot of sympathy for the chap but a lot of this is textbook, don't run your case this way.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Possibly, but the courts are quite sympathetic towards the side who hasn't rocked up with Johnny Cochrane to contest a parking ticket, as it were.bendertherobot wrote:First Aspect wrote:The barristers comments published on road.cc make interesting reading.
The elephant in the room here is the disproportionate costs. Right now two people are each on the hook for £50k. One of them has at least a chance of arguing that this is unreasonably high (the cyclist) but whether this will be outweighed by his own remains to be seen. But come what may, £100k will still be owed.
How in God's name did it get that high? That is at least 200 hours of professional time, even in London. Or about 2-3 months of billable work.
It is way too high, it's going to be somewhat reduced. One thing not reported is that the Defendant has failed to agree at least 2 part 36 offers (see the Barrister's note) so he's going to be hammered because of that.
I can't see an award of costs approaching what has been claimed. But it IS going to be high because of how Part 36 works. Basically it shifts everything back on the loser for not settling. Costs are now on an indemnity basis which pretty much means you end up paying way more of them than on a standard basis. Plus loads of other crap.
See here for a guide:
https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-ins ... --part-36/
I have a lot of sympathy for the chap but a lot of this is textbook, don't run your case this way.
Defendent is an idiot though for getting into legal proceedings and somehow thinking he could deal with it as a layman. It beggars belief actually. Arrogant? Naive? Who knows. I can't believe he wasn't repeatedly advised otherwise at case conferences.0 -
First Aspect wrote:
Possibly, but the courts are quite sympathetic towards the side who hasn't rocked up with Johnny Cochrane to contest a parking ticket, as it were.bendertherobot wrote:First Aspect wrote:The barristers comments published on road.cc make interesting reading.
The elephant in the room here is the disproportionate costs. Right now two people are each on the hook for £50k. One of them has at least a chance of arguing that this is unreasonably high (the cyclist) but whether this will be outweighed by his own remains to be seen. But come what may, £100k will still be owed.
How in God's name did it get that high? That is at least 200 hours of professional time, even in London. Or about 2-3 months of billable work.
It is way too high, it's going to be somewhat reduced. One thing not reported is that the Defendant has failed to agree at least 2 part 36 offers (see the Barrister's note) so he's going to be hammered because of that.
I can't see an award of costs approaching what has been claimed. But it IS going to be high because of how Part 36 works. Basically it shifts everything back on the loser for not settling. Costs are now on an indemnity basis which pretty much means you end up paying way more of them than on a standard basis. Plus loads of other crap.
See here for a guide:
https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-ins ... --part-36/
I have a lot of sympathy for the chap but a lot of this is textbook, don't run your case this way.
Defendent is an idiot though for getting into legal proceedings and somehow thinking he could deal with it as a layman. It beggars belief actually. Arrogant? Naive? Who knows. I can't believe he wasn't repeatedly advised otherwise at case conferences.
They can be sympathetic, but they don't have much latitude here. The Part 36 offer brings consequences set out in CPR 36.17. The Court will not have to consider the "unless it is unjust to do so" test in order to bring them down. The level of the costs isn't necessarily something that may cause the Court to consider that it is unjust. And, it seems, the Defendant has been a bit of an idiot. It's going to be a considerable sum I think, but, who knows at the moment.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:First Aspect wrote:The barristers comments published on road.cc make interesting reading.
The elephant in the room here is the disproportionate costs. Right now two people are each on the hook for £50k. One of them has at least a chance of arguing that this is unreasonably high (the cyclist) but whether this will be outweighed by his own remains to be seen. But come what may, £100k will still be owed.
How in God's name did it get that high? That is at least 200 hours of professional time, even in London. Or about 2-3 months of billable work.
It is way too high, it's going to be somewhat reduced. One thing not reported is that the Defendant has failed to agree at least 2 part 36 offers (see the Barrister's note) so he's going to be hammered because of that.
I can't see an award of costs approaching what has been claimed. But it IS going to be high because of how Part 36 works. Basically it shifts everything back on the loser for not settling. Costs are now on an indemnity basis which pretty much means you end up paying way more of them than on a standard basis. Plus loads of other crap.
See here for a guide:
https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-ins ... --part-36/
I have a lot of sympathy for the chap but a lot of this is textbook, don't run your case this way.
but why does the defendent end up with all the claimants costs in this case not 50/50 ? as the judge decided it was 50/50 outcome so we can debate whether or not youd have expected that as an outcome anyway before the case was heard,but the defendents lawyer certainly have said they didnt
its interesting because I googled to see what Martin Porter was making of it all and the claimants lawyer, whilst busy writing blogposts on the matter, is also sharing details on twitter about the costs and other nuggets of info, and it sounds like they believed once the defence solicitors were on board, they still had opportunity to counter claim and were surprised they didnt
which just leaves me even more confused about the whole thing...0 -
The blogspot post from the solicitor said the special damages part was £161 or so but was reduced from £8k if the solicitor meant what I think he wrote.
The defendant was a bit of an idiot. No specialist to defend him from the beginning. A defendant who defends himself has an idiot as a client. The why not countersue?
The other point is 4 witnesses facing the complainant from the traffic island side and one witness from the cyclist's side (a cyclist). Which had better view? Oni the cyclist because he can see both parties and the peds are really only looking at the complainant and had two directions to look in to see both parties.
The other thing about accelerating. AIUI he was cycling to go up the road which read past the peds crossing the entrance to it. Up implies to me a hill. Is that right? You'd probably want to accelerate up to a hill but not through peds.
Was the cyclist witness in a position to give a good speed estimate? Can you tell how much faster than you someone cycling past is? I doubt he could determine 20mph or if he was really going too fast with any certainty. He can only say he read Hong faster than he would because he undertook him in doing that. Can the defendant determine his speed? I assume he's got a speed measuring device (GPS or old fashioned bike computer). I doubt he was looking at it if he's on a junction approaching peds who aren't looking at him. So he is unlikely to know exact speed hence the 10 to 15 mph estimate. Possibly more accurate than the witness possibly not.
I personally don't think it's cut and dried either way. Would have been better going knock for knock on legal fees IMHO. It seems this is a 50:50 case.0
