£850 fine for causing brain damage

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Miquel In De Rain

No Longer Posting
Yes and no, I quite often see riders dawdling along who are not concerned with their speed but they still go through red lights in order to save a little time.


I see that,3mph and then straight through the red.
 
So far as I'm aware, when a judge speculates about what the outcome of a case might have been, had the facts of the case been different, that is obiter dictum.

GC

He didn't speculate, he reached a judgement. Have you read the case transcript at all?

  1. In my judgment the observations of Lord Denning MR in Froom and others v. Butcher above should apply to the wearing of helmets by cyclists.
 

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
He didn't speculate, he reached a judgement. Have you read the case transcript at all?

  1. In my judgment the observations of Lord Denning MR in Froom and others v. Butcher above should apply to the wearing of helmets by cyclists.

What were Lord Denning's obeservations in Froom and Others v Butcher? What were the facts and the legal issues being debated? Your reference to this case means nothing unless you give the context ie was it a construction case where a worker was injured by a brick falling on his head and a hard hat would have meant he survived or was not seriously injured, so the worker was contributory negligent under Health and Safety at work legislation.

You have still glossed over my point that the judge in Finch seems to have gone off totally into an area which needs Parliament to debate. Do you not think that if Parliament's intention was for cyclists to wear a helmet then it would have legislated for this? It is not for judges to make new law through precedent. If a cyclist does have their damages reduced because of this stupid judges remarks then I would expect the case to be appealed and leave given to do so. You CANNOT get away from the fundamental point that it is NOT currently a legal requirement to wear a cycling helmet where as all the examples you have dragged up such as seat belts must be worn when driving. Period. End of. No dispute. The fact is we have some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament. Cycling helmets are such an important and emotive issue that making wearing of them mandatory needs to be debated by parliament or select committee.

Lets hope this anomoly of (Finch) is soon shown to be bad law and also the judge who has created uncertainty in the law where previously it did not exist is severely criticised by the Court of Appeal or Supreme court if it goes all the way.

BTW RL, are you a practising barrister, solicitor or clerk of the court, usher or even a security guard who has a lot of contact with court precedure?
 
What were Lord Denning's obeservations in Froom and Others v Butcher? What were the facts and the legal issues being debated? Your reference to this case means nothing unless you give the context ie was it a construction case where a worker was injured by a brick falling on his head and a hard hat would have meant he survived or was not seriously injured, so the worker was contributory negligent under Health and Safety at work legislation.

Why don't you read them yourself - they are readily available on-line - and then you might be able to have an informed conversation about it rather than guessing and making it up?

You have still glossed over my point that the judge in Finch seems to have gone off totally into an area which needs Parliament to debate. Do you not think that if Parliament's intention was for cyclists to wear a helmet then it would have legislated for this? It is not for judges to make new law through precedent.

But first you'll have to overcome your complete ignorance of how English Law works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law might be a good place to start your education.


If a cyclist does have their damages reduced because of this stupid judges remarks then I would expect the case to be appealed and leave given to do so. You CANNOT get away from the fundamental point that it is NOT currently a legal requirement to wear a cycling helmet where as all the examples you have dragged up such as seat belts must be worn when driving. Period. End of. No dispute. The fact is we have some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament. Cycling helmets are such an important and emotive issue that making wearing of them mandatory needs to be debated by parliament or select committee.

Lets hope this anomoly of (Finch) is soon shown to be bad law and also the judge who has created uncertainty in the law where previously it did not exist is severely criticised by the Court of Appeal or Supreme court if it goes all the way.

More of the same ignorance and making things up as a pretence for knowledge. Why don't you read the Smith v Finch transcript including the parts about helmets and the lack of a legal requirement to wear them in it? And while you are at it why don't you try to find the Act Parliament has passed on that far more important and emotive issue of murder. Or perhaps you think that all the judges who sentence people for murder are stupid people who are undermining Parliament who would surely have debated and passed a law of murder if they meant people to go to prison for it.
 

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
Why don't you read them yourself - they are readily available on-line - and then you might be able to have an informed conversation about it rather than guessing and making it up?



But first you'll have to overcome your complete ignorance of how English Law works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law might be a good place to start your education.




More of the same ignorance and making things up as a pretence for knowledge. Why don't you read the Smith v Finch transcript including the parts about helmets and the lack of a legal requirement to wear them in it? And while you are at it why don't you try to find the Act Parliament has passed on that far more important and emotive issue of murder. Or perhaps you think that all the judges who sentence people for murder are stupid people who are undermining Parliament who would surely have debated and passed a law of murder if they meant people to go to prison for it.

Ehh? You are off your trolley tonight Redlight.

What has murder got to do with this case???? I don't follow.

Oh Wikipedia the omnipresent authoritative legal source for wanabee lawyers. Is this what you use? LoL! You crack me up. You haven't yet answered my question about what legal training/experience you have?
 

dawesome

Senior Member
This horrible story made me check my TP public liability cover, I don't think long-term care for a high earner with two kids would be covered by £2m.
 

Jonno Boy

Regular
Try explaining that one to the dole, talking hypothetically here, (I have TP cover but this isn't the point) that I would like a job but I'm trying to starve someone out into a low settlement. After all, if X doesn't have the money then he can't pay, can he?
I'm not sure I'd be too keen on a job in such circs.

PS edit: In my case, I might just plead poverty and keep quiet about the TP. If I were in that hypothetical case, that fine would max out my credit card and put me in overdraft.
 
Ehh? You are off your trolley tonight Redlight.

What has murder got to do with this case???? I don't follow.

Oh Wikipedia the omnipresent authoritative legal source for wanabee lawyers. Is this what you use? LoL! You crack me up. You haven't yet answered my question about what legal training/experience you have?

I'm not off my trolley but you are way out of your depth in a subject you try to profess to have knowledge of but don't.

You claim for example:
The fact is we have some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament.


English law (and the law in most other countries) is mainly case law set by judges in Court, not statutory law set by Parliament. What happened in Smith v Finch and Froom v Butcher before it is at the heart of the way English law works, not some aberration as you seem to see it. Setting precedents in Court is the way it works.

Murder is one of the best examples of that. You will not find an Act of Parliament on the offence of murder. The offence comes from case law. But you would seem to think the offence of murder was just "some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament" because surely if it was that important Parliament would have debated it and passed a law of murder.

And since you insist I have run, in a corporate context, a number of cases in both English and US courts up to and including the level of the Appeal Court which have set significant legal precedents. I have spent more hours than I would like to admit sat in chambers with the QCs and legal teams I engaged going over this stuff to know a bit about what I am talking about. Now since you insisted that I disclose my credentials, would you care to reciprocate and tell us what legal training/experience you have? Thought not! We know it doesn't even go as far as Wikipedia but that might be a good place for you to start.
 

hoopdriver

Guru
Location
East Sussex
I'm not off my trolley but you are way out of your depth in a subject you try to profess to have knowledge of but don't.

You claim for example:


L
English law (and the law in most other countries) is mainly case law set by judges in Court, not statutory law set by Parliament. What happened in Smith v Finch and Froom v Butcher before it is at the heart of the way English law works, not some aberration as you seem to see it. Setting precedents in Court is the way it works.

Murder is one of the best examples of that. You will not find an Act of Parliament on the offence of murder. The offence comes from case law. But you would seem to think the offence of murder was just "some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament" because surely if it was that important Parliament would have debated it and passed a law of murder.

And since you insist I have run, in a corporate context, a number of cases in both English and US courts up to and including the level of the Appeal Court which have set significant legal precedents. I have spent more hours than I would like to admit sat in chambers with the QCs and legal teams I engaged going over this stuff to know a bit about what I am talking about. Now since you insisted that I disclose my credentials, would you care to reciprocate and tell us what legal training/experience you have? Thought not! We know it doesn't even go as far as Wikipedia but that might be a good place for you to start.
You weren't cloistered away with all thise QCs and legal eagles as a defendent, I hope... :-)
 
Top Bottom