Incidentally, I'm not sure if anyone has any experience of the Powell v Moody case that the defendant's solicitors in my case are using to apportion 80% blame to me, or any thoughts on this, but I just read reference to Woodham v JM Turner (see below).
To me this reads as basically the same situation as Moody vs Powell. Obviously without access to the full case notes for each it's impossible to make an in-depth comparison, but still, in this case the filtering (motor)cyclist was assigned only 30% blame, for essentially performing the same manoeuvre with the same outcome as that for which Powell was ascribed 80% blame. And in the former case apparently the main reason for apportioning 30% blame to Woodham was because his speed of 20mph was deemed excessive.
Why would the 2 essentially identical cases have such different legal outcomes?
Also, using the precedent of Woodham v Turner instead of Powell v Moody, surely it would be reasonable to argue that the blame ascribed to a cyclist in such an incident ought to be no more than the 30% Powell was ascribed? Then, bearing in mind that in my particular case I was travelling at just over half the speed of Powell, and that my stopping distance would have been considerably less than his, surely my blame ratio, if I have to accept some blame, should, based on this precedent, be no more than 15%?
Thoughts?
(T/A Turners of Great Barton) 2011, EWHC 1588 (QB), T’s employee was driving a coach which emerged at a T junction through a gap headed by a tractor and a trailer in stationary or slow moving traffic. The coach driver started to turn right to drive to the opposite side of the main road. W was driving a motorcycle along the main road towards the junction and overtaking on the outside of the slow traffic. The motorcycle struck the front offside corner of the coach and W sustained serious injuries. Mr Justice Kenneth Parker held that the coach driver was 70% liable on the basis that the view of oncoming traffic was obstructed and she should have waited for a more safe and secure opportunity to emerge. The motorcyclist shouldered 30% of the blame for the accident because it was held that there was a real possibility that a vehicle could emerge through the gap in his path. The motorcyclist’s speed of 20mph was held to be too fast for the overtaking manoeuvre he was carrying out.
We need to be wary of what lawyers sarcastically call Google Law.
Such researches can be very misleading, not least because the full versions of most judgments remain behind subscription services.
As a general comment, I agree Powell v Moody does seem mean-spirited towards the filtering rider, but the case does appear to still be used, so that's where we are.
The 30 per cent liability in the coach case you found seems fairer to me.
Your solicitor should be on top of the latest thinking, but he seems to accept the court will likely be guided by Powell v Moody.
You mention perspective, and that is very important.
Some of those who have replied to this thread suffered serious injury.
Their cases are, quite rightly, being pursued vigorously.
Your best possible result is £600 - your full claim.
Courts being courts, a judge's decision would likely be a compromise between that and the £120 offer.
So going to court won't get you £600, it will only get you the difference between the lesser amount you are awarded and the £120.
And there's always the risk, however slight, that things take an unexpected turn.
No harm in asking your solicitor to give the other lot a prod in an upward direction, but I can't see the point of taking a lot more time and trouble over it than that.
