glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
That's a good one because there are many more words that break that rule (900+) than follow it (40 something).
Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That's a good one because there are many more words that break that rule (900+) than follow it (40 something).
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
Not if you use the full version of the rule (i.e. it only applies to words with a long "e" sound), in which case there are hardly any exceptions.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Hardly any. That's inconceivable.
OP
OP
T675Rich
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
Finally caught up on this after being away, it's definitely eye opening, think I may get me a British Cycling membership to be on the safe side.
For context there is a Scottish case which took over 10 years to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, where the first instance judge thought a 13 year old child being dropped off by a school minibus in rural Scotland was 90% contributorily negligent for stepping in front of a car that was going 60mph on a bendy country road in dark conditions. This was reduced to 70% on appeal in Scotland and then to 50% at SC.
http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-jackson-v-murray-2015-uksc-5/
The ludicrous first instance decision just shows these decisions all just come down to personal biases of judges. (Bearing in mind the claimant suffered severe brain injuries here and the value of the claim was over £2m, it's breathtaking that the legal system put a family through this)
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
I think the use of 'bias' is incorrect - professionals in every field read and interpret things differently, as we are currently finding with the medical profession. Whatever the spilt, there was contributory negligence found by the Supreme Court.
Whilst clearly a terrible case for the family and the child herself, the nature of the injuries shouldn't be a factor considered in 'putting the family through this', no matter how distressing. Clearly one would wish the the Judge in the first instance had apportioned more equitably, as in the (split 3-2) Supreme Court did, but one suspects there may still have been an appeal/appeals, given that the Supreme Court was asked to rule that there had been no contributory negligence at all.
A bias isn't a synonym for a prejudice, a bias can be a subconscious leaning that oneself isn't aware of at all. So I'm not saying the first instance judge was motivated by a particular agenda.
A reduction in the portioning by 40% is huge and in this instance is a difference of about £900k in general damages to the claimant. A well functioning legal system shouldn't have such a big difference between the different tiers of the judiciary.
https://www.brownejacobson.com/insu...ources/legal-updates/2015/05/jackson-v-murray
This has a more detailed outline of the facts, the defendant saw the school bus was stopped and its lights were on but made no attempt to slow or proceed more cautiously. Contrast that with the rationale the DJ gave in this Hazeldean case and I don't see how any decision of 90% contributory negligence is reconcilable.
Bonefish Blues
Banging donk
- Location
- 52 Festive Road
My picking up on bias was its common vernacular meaning, where it carries those connotations.
You'll note that the Supreme Court split 3-2 on its final judgement.
You'll note that the Supreme Court split 3-2 on its final judgement.
Problem is in all these contributory negligence appeals, the lead judge always says that assessing contributory negligence 'isn't a precise science', and that appeal courts shouldn't reverse a first instance decision unless there is a fundamental error in application of the law. This is a bigger driver for why it was a 3-2 split decision than the consideration that the first instance decision isn't ludicrous - they were all reluctant to erode trust in the judicial system, just some were, on balance, more minded to give a fair outcome to the claimant than others.
In the GoFundMe page for Mr Hazeldean, it says:
"£4,300 for the compensation, payable in 14 days.
£10,000 to cover the pedestrian's legal fees, payable in 21 days (this may increase when the final cost award is declared as they are seeking around £100,000 in costs - but £10,000 was the amount indicated by the judge).
£7,000 to cover Robert's own legal fees."
Mr. Hazeldean's solicitor's statement on the status of costs is worthy of note:
"The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs. We are strongly resisting this as a total abuse of process, and are pleased to report that the court has listed this matter for a third occasion. The court has ordered that the Claimant pays our client’s costs of this third hearing.
Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said; “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
The judge is clearly unhappy with Ms Brushett racking up disproportionate "costs" of c£100,000 unreasonably under the circumstance (vs £10,000 indicated by the judge). If she proceeds the way it seems to be going, chance is that most if not all the excess claimed will be rejected, with shortfall resulting may or may not be covered by her insurer. If not, she might have to eat some/all herself, depending on prior agreement between her and her lawyers. Additionally, her "damages" awarded, which is merely £4300 (presumably 50% of £8600 to account for 50:50 blame allocation), is going to be decimated by his lawyers' costs at the third hearing.
Hence it is far too early to say whether Ms Brushett will end up with anything. If not, it would be poetic justice for Ms Brushett, imho.
Consequently, it is also too early to say if she had/has "better" counsel.
It's pretty easy to keep racking up costs in the litigation process - charge £600 an hour by charging for Partner reviews rather than £150 an hour for a trainee or newly qualified associate; prepare multiple witness statements and submissions; missing deadlines so that it takes an application to get court approval for an extension etc. This is why it's common practice to take out an after the event (ATE) insurance policy in the civil litigation process - like nearly all insurance policies, you pay a policy excess and anything above that is covered by the insurer, who are in a better position to haggle down the bill with other side solicitors their end in any case
numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
Cyclist settles case for £30,000 after hitting pedestrian who was looking at phone
https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...r-hitting-pedestrian-who-was-looking-at-phone
https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...r-hitting-pedestrian-who-was-looking-at-phone
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
He should have put in a counterclaim, if someone walked in front of me whilst looking at their phone instead of looking where they were going I'd be really miffed. 
HMS_Dave
Grand Old Lady
Im surprised the DM isn't making this top headline news so the pitchfork brigade can bang on about the old classics of road tax, insurance and red light runners. I suppose Coronavirus is still taking the lead. Although it also highlights the rarity of such cases having happened almost 5 years ago... I hope all parties can move on now with lessons learned on both sides now...
