Pedestrian Wins Compensation Despite Not Looking

Moonbiker

If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury.

The wider good for lawyers and insurance companies not cycling


Why shouldn't peds have insurance for when there walking causes injury also?

Dorset_Boy

Moonbiker wrote:

If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury.

The wider good for lawyers and insurance companies not cycling


Why shouldn't peds have insurance for when there walking causes injury also?

That's the logical next step in the barrister's argument isn't it. If the pedestrian had been deemed closer to 100% at fault then would the barrister really be pressing for her and all pedestrians to have insurance?

All sense and logic suggests that if it was 50-50 then all costs etc should be split, but the law regularly has nothing to do with sense or logic.
It's also often about lawyers lining their own pockets too.

However it is sensible to ensure you have some form of third party liability be it through BC, your home insurance or something else. The same is true if you have a pet. ensure you are covered if they escaped and caused an accident.

bendertherobot

Briefly, I'll try again later, the reference to 50 50 is confusing and not what you might think it means.

She won. But she was 50 per cent to blame. Her damages are reduced by 50 per cent.

Because she wins she is entitled to her costs. The general rule is that if you succeed at all you will recover all your costs. That can be changed for a variety of factors.

Why isn't he getting anything? Because he didn't CLAIM or counter claim. He only pleaded contributory negligence. Since he has no claim he gets no costs. He has lost even though he demonstrated that she was also at fault.

Had he counter claimed then that 50 50 would have worked in his favour. He would have got damages and been entitled to the costs of his counteclaim because he would have won.

slowbike

Tangled Metal 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?

Not agreeing with the defendants decision not to get representation (after all, I do retain BC membership partly for this sort of issue) but I can see probably why he didn't instruct legal assistance from the outset.

He saw it as a black & white issue - the pedestrian stepped into his path whilst being distracted by a phone.
He doesn't agree with the sue everyone culture (neither do I) - so didn't counter sue either.
He didn't comprehend the possible financial outcome of this until it was too late.
As he didn't have legal advice insurance, he was probably going to have to stump the bill for his legal advice - a cost he could probably do without.

What this does show is that the legal system is ludicrous in how it deals with these civil cases - it seems to be a case of "he who pays the lawyer wins".

What did the pedestrian think she was suing for ? Was it's just a money grab or did she have genuine costs that she felt should've been met. It really does feel like the "pay me money and I'll go away" culture that the defendant and many others detest.
Why do we need to insure for legal costs - isn't it a bit unfair? If you can afford to buy legal insurance you get to sue/defend - if you don't then you're stuffed .... because unless you know the law and are 100% in the right then you get stuffed with costs that you couldn't afford anyway.

bigmat

awavey wrote:

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...

Yes, conduct of defence seems shambolic even after D's sol came on record. I wonder if D would consider a claim against them or if still too "anti-claims culture", or maybe D was ignoring the sol's advice?

First.Aspect

Would a counter claim even help him now? Wouldn't he then be on the hook for his costs (to the extent that he was negligent) plus hers (to the extent that he was negligent)?

An appeal, perhaps?

g00se

I believe there is a three year limit on a claim, so he would be too late now

bendertherobot

Bringing a claim now is theoretically possible if he can succeed in an application to disapply the limitation period. But he would likely fail or it would be an abuse of process

timothyw

Given that the gofundme has nearly reached £60k I can't see him bothering to counterclaim now, personally.

All told I don't think it's gone that bad for him, given there seems to be some evidence that he was riding like a douche, with an airzound but without insurance.

First.Aspect

TimothyW wrote:

Given that the gofundme has nearly reached £60k I can't see him bothering to counterclaim now, personally.

All told I don't think it's gone that bad for him, given there seems to be some evidence that he was riding like a douche, with an airzound but without insurance.

he was indeed riding like a douche, but neither party had insurance and tbh I would like to live somewhere that it isn't necessary.
And remember the pedestrian here has a 50k legal bill but 5k compensation. So she has also utterly lost perspective or received bad advice. I note the barrister (rather than solicitor advocate who would have been cheaper) didn't quite address the 900% discrepancy between the eventual award and the costs.

slowmart

What it reduces down to is the fact that even defending a claim could possibly incur substantial costs and additional risk. Thats not to mention the impact on your mental health and a distraction into your life you could do without.

Certainly as society is getting more litigious it means being better prepared individually for the potential incoming action which you can hand off to the insurers to sought.

awavey

First Aspect wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Given that the gofundme has nearly reached £60k I can't see him bothering to counterclaim now, personally.

All told I don't think it's gone that bad for him, given there seems to be some evidence that he was riding like a douche, with an airzound but without insurance.

he was indeed riding like a douche, but neither party had insurance and tbh I would like to live somewhere that it isn't necessary.
And remember the pedestrian here has a 50k legal bill but 5k compensation. So she has also utterly lost perspective or received bad advice. I note the barrister (rather than solicitor advocate who would have been cheaper) didn't quite address the 900% discrepancy between the eventual award and the costs.

he did on a twitter response to Martin Porter, the costs are that high because theyd been working on it for 4 years, a 2 day trial, 3 witnesses, the defendents costs from October last year onwards were ~18k they claimed

Alejandrosdog

TimothyW wrote:

Given that the gofundme has nearly reached £60k I can't see him bothering to counterclaim now, personally.

All told I don't think it's gone that bad for him, given there seems to be some evidence that he was riding like a douche, with an airzound but without insurance.

Are you criticising him for not having insurance?

timothyw

Well, he wouldn't have got in this pickle if he had insurance would he?

Alejandrosdog

TimothyW wrote:

Well, he wouldn't have got in this pickle if he had insurance would he?

Possibly he would yes. The inference of your comment though is that every person on a bike wether 2 or 90 should have insurance. This would be counterproductive to the national need for greener healthy their people and transport. And far too simplistic.

timothyw

Alejandrosdog wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Well, he wouldn't have got in this pickle if he had insurance would he?

Possibly he would yes. The inference of your comment though is that every person on a bike wether 2 or 90 should have insurance. This would be counterproductive to the national need for greener healthy their people and transport. And far too simplistic.

You are rather ignoring the context.

Someone commuting in central London regularly who has apparently felt the need to equip themselves with an airzound, presumably has some awareness of the risk that unaware pedestrians/other vehicles cause.

In view of this awareness, they ought have also concluded that insurance would be desirable, in case they are in an accident and need to defend themselves, legally.

Someone that only rides on the odd weekend is much less likely to need the insurance. Someone that dives through gaps in groups of pedestrians having sounded a 115db airhorn is that much more likely to need it.

I agree that mandatory insurance would be a bad thing, same as mandatory helmet laws, but I still ride with insurance and a helmet.

Alejandrosdog

TimothyW wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

Well, he wouldn't have got in this pickle if he had insurance would he?

Possibly he would yes. The inference of your comment though is that every person on a bike wether 2 or 90 should have insurance. This would be counterproductive to the national need for greener healthy their people and transport. And far too simplistic.

You are rather ignoring the context.

Someone commuting in central London regularly who has apparently felt the need to equip themselves with an airzound, presumably has some awareness of the risk that unaware pedestrians/other vehicles cause.

In view of this awareness, they ought have also concluded that insurance would be desirable, in case they are in an accident and need to defend themselves, legally.

Someone that only rides on the odd weekend is much less likely to need the insurance. Someone that dives through gaps in groups of pedestrians having sounded a 115db airhorn is that much more likely to need it.

I agree that mandatory insurance would be a bad thing, same as mandatory helmet laws, but I still ride with insurance and a helmet.

I’m sure you do

robintes

I do hope all bikers do not ignore this dangerous ruling. AFAIK vehicles have the right of way on the highway. A bicycle is a vehicle and so pedestrians must give way except at designated crossing points zebras etc. As a commuting cyclist my greates concern was dumb pedestrians walking out in front of you. We cyclist know only too well that pedestrians dont "SEE" cyclists the same as cars. I resorted to bellowing loudly at errant public. We know you dont have time to reach and sound a horn - unless technology has changed and you have a mouth operated switch. And by god that horn must be as loud as a truck

So this smart phone zombie walks straight out in front of you, endangering life all round and gets awarded dmages and puts the poor cyclist on a road to bankruptcy

This is so unfair

I hope the cycling community will recognise the risk unless this ruling is challenged. Clearly the judge is not a cyclist and should have been challenged

First.Aspect

There is no such thing as "right of way" between road users. Just priority. But even priority doesn't give you the right to drive into something that doesnt have priority if you could have reasonably avoided doing so.

roger_merriman

robintes wrote:

I do hope all bikers do not ignore this dangerous ruling. AFAIK vehicles have the right of way on the highway. A bicycle is a vehicle and so pedestrians must give way except at designated crossing points zebras etc. As a commuting cyclist my greates concern was dumb pedestrians walking out in front of you. We cyclist know only too well that pedestrians dont "SEE" cyclists the same as cars. I resorted to bellowing loudly at errant public. We know you dont have time to reach and sound a horn - unless technology has changed and you have a mouth operated switch. And by god that horn must be as loud as a truck

So this smart phone zombie walks straight out in front of you, endangering life all round and gets awarded dmages and puts the poor cyclist on a road to bankruptcy

This is so unfair

I hope the cycling community will recognise the risk unless this ruling is challenged. Clearly the judge is not a cyclist and should have been challenged

In America maybe that’s not how the law works here, it may feel that way as with regard to cars etc, but that’s not how the law works

kingrollo

The real issue here is that someone claimed against him - and he didnt appoint a solicitor.

I remember an ex colleague of mine handled his own divorce, his wife had gone off with another bloke - so he was sure he would be ok. Predictably he got took to the cleaners in the courts.

You dont have to have insurance (I do btw) - but should someone take you to court - then you need a legal expert.