What logic

& other vehicles including Pedalecs, Carts & Horses.
allde
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:46 pm

What logic

Postby allde » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:45 am

Let me see, the lights were green, the lady wasn't paying attention, on her mobile phone, walked in front of the cyclist and his to blame 50%. Wtf

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/c ... 111110e6d9

Gravy
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: What logic

Postby Gravy » Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:16 pm

:shock:

Setting aside for a moment the appropriateness of the finding of 50/50 responsibility (with which I take issue), how is it that that finding leads to either party compensating the other? And how is it that one party is awarded costs if the responsibility for the incident is shared (assuming conduct in litigation is not in issue)?

There has to be more to it than is reported. For the sake of all that is holy in His noodley domain, there must be a reason.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: What logic

Postby Hardy » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:18 pm

The costs reporting in that article is absolutely baloney. Costs in many County Court (UK) cases are capped so that when a party wins in court the amount they can recover in legal costs is limited, and the disbursements for witnesses etc has to be reasonable and necessary and can also be limited.

Is anyone really dumb enough to believe that this plaintiff entered into an agreement with lawyers to spend £100,000 on a claim against an uninsured cyclist that was worth less than £10,000? I'd love to see the receipts for what has been spent! I note the costs are only "estimated at about £100,000" - not sure who did the estimating. A two day civil case would normally be done for under £15,000. The pedestrian was awarded £4,161 so her total loss was only £8,322. Given the broad discretion available to the court in respect of costs it is unlikely the plaintiff will recover legal costs that exceed the value of her loss.

LEO
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: What logic

Postby LEO » Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:11 pm

From the barrister who represented the woman about cost.

They’re in the right ballpark from what I’ve seen. Summary assessment is taking place later. There are a number of factors here such as the case taking 4 years, 3 expert witnesses, D being an LiP for the first 3 years, needing to serve out of the jurisdiction, 2 day trial.

https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1 ... 2733062144

and if your interested in reading

Brushett v Hazeldean – The Facts https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wor ... the-facts/

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: What logic

Postby Hardy » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:10 am

"The Claimant had been awarded more in damages than 2 previous Part 36 offers she had made in attempts to settle her claim without going to trial"
That is a very relevant aspect of the costs calculation. It is saying the plaintiff had offered to accept less than £4,161 to settle the case, but the defendant rejected the settlement offer. This can have the effect of causing the defendant to pay solicitor-client costs instead of the significantly lower party-party costs. Nevertheless, the judge might feel restrained by the fact the quantum falls well within the "small claims" jurisdiction of the court (under £15,000) where costs orders are restricted and large awards of costs are usually not made.

Many people might seem surprised that the pedestrian crossing against a red light recovered an award at all, but that is how it works. Just because you have broken the law does not mean you are not entitled to be afforded due care. You are not immune from liability if you run into another vehicle that went through a stop sign and turned across your path, or collide with a cyclist just because he is going the wrong way on a one-way street. This problem is very often dealt with in the courts when a car fails to stop when the lights turn red, and collides with a car that is turning right across its path. The turning car has a legal obligation to give way to all on-coming vehicles whether or not they are running a red light, so even if another road user is acting illegally you still have an obligation to do your best to avoid causing them loss or damage. Courts usually look at the problem without a lot of regard to the road rules - it is not a test of who complied with them. The test is who could have taken more care to avoid the accident.

Gravy
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: What logic

Postby Gravy » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:20 pm

So it's analogous to our Calderbank offer?

LEO
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: What logic

Postby LEO » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:40 pm

Hardy wrote:"Many people might seem surprised that the pedestrian crossing against a red light recovered an award at all, but that is how it works. Just because you have broken the law does not mean you are not entitled to be afforded due care. You are not immune from liability if you run into another vehicle that went through a stop sign and turned across your path, or collide with a cyclist just because he is going the wrong way on a one-way street.


If people bother reading the link I posted earlier, they would most likely agree the cyclist bears the majority of the fault, given he saw the people crossing the road, accelerated in speed towards them (after seeing them), used his air horn to alert them (prior knowledge of the danger).

That would have been interesting is seeing the split in damages had he filed a counterclaim.


Return to “Bicycles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest