Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[Crankarm]

"Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way"
WTF?

Yup, that's a fundamental principle of the HWC. Even if the hypothetical ped has their head down, eyes glued to their phone searching for ambulance chasing lawyers.

 

[Crankarm]

Apologies if this has been posted or this is the wrong place, also the source but I couldn't see it covered elsewhere.

A pedestrian who stepped out into the road while looking at their phone has been awarded compensation from a cyclist who hit her:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7152963/Yoga-teacher-staring-phone-hit-cyclist-wins-compensation.html

The judge said that the pedestrian was also partially to blame but as "cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways" said it was 50/50.

I find this amazing and slightly worrying tbh. Hopefully it doesn't set a precedent for people to get compensation from cyclists if they step out on them without looking. Or puts people off cycling, having said that the vids I have seen in London look scary.

Would he be able to counter sue though and get half his damages from her?

He may have counter claimed, we are not told whether he did nor not, but the fact that he has been held liable for the collision i.e. he was negligent and damages of a reduction of 50% will be awarded against him suggests the judge felt the claimant had some responsibility for the collision which makes a bit a of mockery of their decision given the cyclist and witnesses all maintained the claimant stepped off the pavement with her eyes glued to her mobile not keeping sufficient look out. If I was the defendant I would be questioning how my case was defended.

 

[MichaelW2]

If I was the defendant I would be questioning how my case was defended.

You expect in car crash cases that the expert witness giving evidence are experts in the field of car crashes. I don't think anyone is an expert in bicycle crashes and there seems to be very little research to reference.
In the case last year about the fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, braking distance of a legally equipped bike was measured using a fat tyre MTB with V or disc brakes, not a road bike with two caliper brakes and identical tyres to the ones in question.
There seems to be no data on stopping distances for different bike types, tyres, rider weights into which new data can be fitted and assessed. Or on response times.
Defense lawyers seem to be pretty clueless when it comes to challenging cycle crash evidence.

 

[Crackle]

Believe you me you want insurance because if you are held liable in any claim against you as in say a case like this then legal and medical bills, etc can be crippling. You could end up losing any assets you have e.g. house, etc. If this claimant had ended with serious injuries being fed through a straw lying in a hospital bed for the rest of their life then the bills for their care, loss of earnings could be absolutely astronomical potentially many millions which would bankrupt many people. Maybe the other side would be generous but some how I don't see given this claimant brought her claim although she seems to have been negligent herself walking into the road while eyes glued to her mobile phone. I just hope she had to pay her own costs. She was probably insured so her insurer will pick up any legal costs and disbursements where as the cyclist may not have been so lucky and could be facing a huge bill for costs plus damages on top.

Hmm, I've thought about it many times but never bothered. I still think the risk to me is the greater and my own cycling is suburban. I'm still not sure it's worth taking out for me, I stress the, for me, others situations may well be different. I imagine the majority of cyclists don't have insurance, this doesn't change my mind.

Edit: After checking, my own House Insurance does cover me anyhow for £2m

 

[Crankarm]

Hmm, I've thought about it many times but never bothered. I still think the risk to me is the greater and my own cycling is suburban. I'm still not sure it's worth taking out for me, I stress the, for me, others situations may well be different. I imagine the majority of cyclists don't have insurance, this doesn't change my mind.

Well I consider it a no brainer as joining British Cycling or similar includes 3rd party cover and you are supporting cycling. If you have 3rd party liability attached to house insurance then this could be your saviour although check the small print to see if RTAs and partciualry an activity such as cycling would be covered. If you did have a claim and used this cover your over all house insurance premiums might go up as a result but this would be insignificant compared to having to pay damages yourself. As I say 3rd party insurance from membership of cycling organisations is a no brainer imho. I wouldn't want to he held personally liable and risk losing my house, other assets and watching my life collapse as I was made bankrupt. But that's just me.

 

[PK99]

Do you know how much for? I'm just curious as to whether it's actually worth the insurance, the risk must be vanishingly small.

That is exactly what you need insurance for: the low probability, high consequence event.

 

[Kempstonian]

Didn't stepping into the road without looking used to be called jaywalking? And wasn't that an offence?

If she hadn't stepped in front of him there would have been no accident. If she had looked where she was going she wouldn't have stepped out. Therefore she's at fault in my book.

Bedfor town center is largely pedestrianised and phone zombies are all over the place. A guy I know was walking along one day and he saw one of these zombies was heading straight for him, so he stood still when she was about 10 metres away. She kept coming (must have been at a critical point in her Candy Crush game)... he waited until she was about to walk into him and then (in his best drill sargeant voice) he shouted "LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING!"

I don't think she finished her game.

 

[PK99]

Didn't stepping into the road without looking used to be called jaywalking? And wasn't that an offence?

If she hadn't stepped in front of him there would have been no accident. If she had looked where she was going she wouldn't have stepped out. Therefore she's at fault in my book.

Bedfor town center is largely pedestrianised and phone zombies are all over the place. A guy I know was walking along one day and he saw one of these zombies was heading straight for him, so he stood still when she was about 10 metres away. She kept coming (must have been at a critical point in her Candy Crush game)... he waited until she was about to walk into him and then (in his best drill sargeant voice) he shouted "LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING!"

I don't think she finished her game.

I normally use "BOO!"

 

[booze and cake]

I usually loudly use the passive aggressive 'wakey effin wakey'. And this happens pretty much every single day with people on phones in London. I am amazed there is seemingly no duty or responsibility on pedestrians to look before steeping into the highway. And how many drivers have got off with much, much worse?

I think this sets a dangerous precedent, this case and the Charlie Allison case hint that the best course or action for a cyclist involved in an accident is to simply leave the scene ASAP before being identified, assuming they are able, which is not a good situation at all.

 

[Slick]

I think it sounds fair enough, especially if it means more protection for cyclists who are hit by vehicles. My guess would be a bit of a hollow victory for the ped as the award will more than likely be fairly low.

 

[Crackle]

That is exactly what you need insurance for: the low probability, high consequence event.

Again, hmmm. How high a consequence is the average cycle accident, I still think the chance of hitting someone is vanishingly low and being sued even lower and them winning, lower again. 40 years, never hit anyone. Never say never but really I try not too because it will hurt, me.

Also, I've had people step out on me. I don't swerve, I just try to stop, otherwise it becomes a guessing game.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If it's 50:50 liability surprised one party is being asked to make a payout to the other. I'd have thought it'd just be a case of equal responsibility no payout.

 

[Crankarm]

You expect in car crash cases that the expert witness giving evidence are experts in the field of car crashes. I don't think anyone is an expert in bicycle crashes and there seems to be very little research to reference.
In the case last year about the fixie rider who killed a pedestrian, braking distance of a legally equipped bike was measured using a fat tyre MTB with V or disc brakes, not a road bike with two caliper brakes and identical tyres to the ones in question.
There seems to be no data on stopping distances for different bike types, tyres, rider weights into which new data can be fitted and assessed. Or on response times.
Defense lawyers seem to be pretty clueless when it comes to challenging cycle crash evidence.

I wasn't thinking in the respect of braking distances, but more along the lines that of the two parties the claimant was clearly the more at fault than the cyclist. The cyclist didn't actually do anything wrong. He gave a warning, tried to avoid the collision where as the pedestrian did nothing of the sort. They contributed to it. Sure pedestrians have right of way crossing a road but this is not absolute. They surely have to take reasonable care to their own safety and that of others. Walking straight out into a road with out looking with your vision glued to a mobile phone could be viewed as careless at best and down right dangerous at worst.

I just wonder what resources the cyclist has and whether he has the funds to appeal or alternatively a cycling organisation could take the case on his behalf as it raises such a shocking precedent. Zombie peds glued to their mobile phones are such a frequent menace these days legislation and case law needs to get up to date. It's absurd that the law should condone some one just walking out into the road glued to their mobile phone cause a serious collision whether they themselves are injured or not and effectively get away with it.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

If it's 50:50 liability surprised one party is being asked to make a payout to the other. I'd have thought it'd just be a case of equal responsibility no payout.

It's not 50-50. The cyclist was found liable, but the payment to the pedestrian will be reduced by 50% due to her contributory negligence. A fine distinction.

 

[PK99]

Again, hmmm. How high a consequence is the average cycle accident, I still think the chance of hitting someone is vanishingly low and being sued even lower and them winning, lower again. 40 years, never hit anyone. Never say never but really I try not too because it will hurt, me.

Also, I've had people step out on me. I don't swerve, I just try to stop, otherwise it becomes a guessing game.

A guy I rode with for a while 10 years ago had had a £40,000 payout following a broken hip resulting from a crash caused by a fellow cyclist.