Sinclair -v- Joyner

[Arjimlad]

I found this very interesting trying to understand what took place.

Mrs Sinclair was out for a ride and ended up with serious head injuries.

Mrs Joyner had apparently come around a bend to find Mrs Sinclair nearer the middle of the road and in difficulty with her bike. Mrs Sinclair's tyre impacted with the rear tyre of the oncoming 4x4 of Mrs Joyner and she fell onto the road. She was held to have contributed to the accident by 25% for being too far over but there was no contributory negligence in her not wearing a helmet.

The judge said

"Motorists have to anticipate hazards in the road, particularly from vulnerable road users, and to be ready to react to them. In my judgment the Defendant cannot be relieved of that duty of care by seeking to blame the Claimant, who was obviously in difficulty, for deviating into her side of the road and colliding with the rear offside tyre, after the front of the car had gone past her. The fact that a collision occurred demonstrates that there was not sufficient room for her to pass the Claimant safely, and that the Defendant's assumption to the contrary was in error. She ought to have appreciated that her car was too close to the centre of the road for her to have passed this cyclist safely."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/1800.html

 

[Milkfloat]

Obviously the learned Judge has a far better understanding of what happened and the law - but my gut reaction is I am surprised the defendant was found to be so much at fault. As a cyclist I would expect to be found pretty much fully at fault for deviating onto the the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. I could quite easily see myself being that driver as i think I would probably have driven in the same manner. Although in hindsight it is easy to say that the driver should have stopped when they saw the cyclist in the middle of the road, in practice I think it would be rare that it would happen.

Unfortunately the cyclist has been left with permanent damage and needs care. The helmet information was also interesting, but I am not going to open that can of worms.

Hopefully both the driver and the cyclist have happier times ahead.

 

[glenn forger]

Wrong side of the road?

 

[Markymark]

A car should be able to stop within the distance it can see. Now when it is oncoming that alters things as the distance between seeing and stopping is reduced as the other party travels towards you.

However, a cyclists 'in difficulty' I would imagine would not be going that fast (I am sure the judge had greater knowledge of relative speeds). I would imagine that the driver has borne some responsibility for going around a corner at too fast a speed.

 

[Arjimlad]

I think the conclusion was that the driver had oodles more room to spot the bike than she said in her evidence. 60 metres compared with 2-3 car lengths..

 

[glenn forger]

Mr Joyner now states that the Claimant was not "in the geometric centre of the road" when he first saw her, but was "around 10% away" from it, on her side. It is not possible to say precisely where the Claimant was but I find on all the evidence, including the account given by Mr Joyner nearer the time, the Defendant's own evidence and the evidence of Ross Ashdown referred to below that, although the Claimant was not actually on the wrong side of the road she was cycling very close to the centre

Not the wrong side of the road.

 

[glenn forger]

I think MRS JUSTICE COX did an excellent job there. The "expert witness" sounds like a complete doofus.

 

[Arjimlad]

What drew my attention to the case was an article about useless expert witnesses. Thankfully for Mrs Sinclair's family, it was the defence expert witness !

It made a refreshing read and it was a risky case which could easily have gone the other way.

 

[Origamist]

I think MRS JUSTICE COX did an excellent job there. The "expert witness" sounds like a complete doofus.

It's doubtful that the defendant's expert witness would have passed muster in CycleChat Commuting when it comes to reasoned arguments about collision causation.

Reads like a fair result to me.