Robert Hazeldean crowdfunding hits goal – but will it be enough?

craigstitt wrote:

I know this has probably been discussed but is this not in the interests of a body like Cycling UK to take up, and at the very least appeal the original decision.  Without hearing the detailed evidence it seems like the judge has erred in a point of law.

She used the reasoning that the pedestrian was already established in the road, which may or may not be the case, which has provided the basis for the fact that the cyclist was 50%  at fault.  But using logic, if approaching a pedestrian crossing with good line of sight, doing a fairly moderate speed and have someone step out in front of you and despite your best efforts you still cannot stop take evasive action after seeing the pedstrian step into the road then the pedestrian could not be argued to have been established in the road.

Secondly the reasoning that a cyclist should be prepared for pedestrians to be erratic is nonsense.  Imagine the first case of an electric car hitting a pedestrian who blindly walks out onto the road.  The chances of the car driver being found to be at fault are precisely Zero. 

The point is the money grabbing ........... (choose whichever expletive you want), got some high priced lawyers to rack up some case that any judge with any modicum of common sense would have kicked into touch in the first instance, but they managed to find someone who seemed to be living in cloud cuckoo land who thinks that by having both feet on the road a pedestrian has established themselves on the road.

I just wonder if there have been any cases where pedestrians have run across 3 or 4 lanes of traffic and been hit by a car, where the judge has went "the pedestrian was established on the road as they were in lane 2, and all drivers should expect pedestrians to behave in erratic manners therefore have some compensation"..............

I think the real challenge here is although a bike is under the same laws of the road as a vehicle we all know that an emergency stop in a car is a far easier action to complete vs one on a bike, expectially taking into account the increased chance of personal injury due to the fact that braking hard and steering is completely different on two wheels vs four.

I believe that if a someone had driven their car in the same manor that this chap rode his bike then they would have been found completely at fault. Having said that the law about being established in the road is clear but very few drivers respect this when turning into side streets. The situation in this case is quite different to someone simply stepping off the pavement - this junction had many people crossing as the cyclist approached, he failed to moderate his speed appropriately (this is an uphill junction remember so simply freewheeling would have done that) and used his horn instead, only breaking at the last minute once it became apparent that the junction was not going to clear.

I’m not sure how the lawyers are money grabbing to be honest. They are being paid to provide a service. Just like any service you can choose who you use and even better than that, if you can’t afford them then the court will provide one for you.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I think the yoga woman's money grabbing lawyers may have been hoping the cyclist would continue without legal representation and were trying to see how much they could get away with.

I wondered that myself I also wonder if it's possible that the woman concerned did not enter into a no win no fee arrangement so she could be trapped too.  I'm obviously feeling charitable today!

Secret_squirrel wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I think the yoga woman's money grabbing lawyers may have been hoping the cyclist would continue without legal representation and were trying to see how much they could get away with.

 

I wondered that myself I also wonder if it's possible that the woman concerned did not enter into a no win no fee arrangement so she could be trapped too.  I'm obviously feeling charitable today!

I think this is quite likely. If she's lawyered up by using a CFA or CCFA then the lawyers will push the costs up by using higher pay grade solicitors. She's quite possibly insured too or taken out after the event insurance. But even then, 100k is incredible. A costs hearing and detailed assessment should see that come down hopefully. Costs have to be proportionate and justified. I hope Rob has a decent costs solicitor with him.

And yes, been there though not cycling related.

bottechia wrote:

let's hope that common sense prevails in the upcoming damages review and sets damages aagainst Hazeldean at t £0.01

The case has been allocated to the fast or multi track. It seems, also, not to have been allocated to the road traffic accident fixed costs regime. Suggesting that the damages claim, while not yet assessed, is considerable.

John Smith wrote:

If a jogger slows to 14kph they should be talking to sports England. That would not be a bump, but being hit hard by someone running fast.

Where does it say that that is the impact speed of whatever speed you're quoting, use mph as per the judgement and lawful measurement in the UK.

The traveller who was on a cycle was approximated at moving between 10-15mph BEFORE impact not at the point of impact. They slowed from that whilst making deliberate efforts to avoid a collision. Jogging speed could easily be in that range, if we apply the rules in a different way to one group only then that is bias and discriminatory and IMHO unlawful.

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.

There will be no change because these events are so rare.
If he had insurance, then the counter claim would have been made and the costs would have been 7000.

I don't purport to understand a legal system whereby compensation of 4k is accompanied by 100k costs, but apparently, the final costs may be lower.

hirsute wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.

There will be no change because these events are so rare. ...

Really? You think it will remain a rare occurance when word get round the win or no fee scum?

bikeman01 wrote:

hirsute wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.

There will be no change because these events are so rare. ...

 

Really? You think it will remain a rare occurance when word get round the win or no fee scum?

The rare occurence being the collision and subsequent damage. Which is why premiums are low because insurers collect all sorts of data about accidents and payouts.

Apportioning liability between parties has been going on for donkey's years.

I don't really know why you write as though this is a new phenomenon.

If he had involved lawyers at the start, we know his costs would be no more that 7000 not 100000.

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.

But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.

And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.

Bungle73 wrote:

But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.

And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.

Exactly.

3rd party insurance is actually available for free for cyclists (in exchange for a marketing email once or twice a month) so there's absolutely reason not to have it.

Rich_cb wrote:

Bungle73 wrote:

But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.

And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.

Exactly. 3rd party insurance is actually available for free for cyclists (in exchange for a marketing email once or twice a month) so there's absolutely reason not to have it.

And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.

hirsute wrote:

And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.

Well he lives in France now so it's very possible that whatever household insurance (or whatever the French equivalent is) he has doesn't cover cases abroad.

And I assume that while he may have been living in the UK at the time of the incident, whatever insurance he had then he no longer has so it won't cover him.

And there's  a difference between liability (whch is the compensation she's been awarded) and legal costs (which is the cost of the case being brought to court). She's not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc.

crazy-legs wrote:

hirsute wrote:

And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.

Well he lives in France now so it's very possible that whatever household insurance (or whatever the French equivalent is) he has doesn't cover cases abroad.

And I assume that while he may have been living in the UK at the time of the incident, whatever insurance he had then he no longer has so it won't cover him.

And there's  a difference between liability (whch is the compensation she's been awarded) and legal costs (which is the cost of the case being brought to court). She's not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc.

It would be as strange policy that did not cover you simply because the date of the claim was after the actual event and the actual event was within the time period of insurance coverage.

My policy states

If following an accident someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged anywhere in the world, during the period of insurance,we’ll cover the legal liability of you or your family as: occupiers of your home; private individuals.
The most we’ll pay for any claim arising from one incident, including claimants’ costs and expenses is £2,000,000. We may also pay other costs and expenses incurred with our prior permission, within this limit.

crazy-legs wrote:

hirsute wrote:

And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.

Well he lives in France now so it's very possible that whatever household insurance (or whatever the French equivalent is) he has doesn't cover cases abroad.

And I assume that while he may have been living in the UK at the time of the incident, whatever insurance he had then he no longer has so it won't cover him.

And there's  a difference between liability (whch is the compensation she's been awarded) and legal costs (which is the cost of the case being brought to court). She's not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc.

She must have been very sure of herself to allow that level of legal cost to mount up.

crazy-legs wrote:

hirsute wrote:

And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.

Well he lives in France now so it's very possible that whatever household insurance (or whatever the French equivalent is) he has doesn't cover cases abroad.

And I assume that while he may have been living in the UK at the time of the incident, whatever insurance he had then he no longer has so it won't cover him.

And there's  a difference between liability (whch is the compensation she's been awarded) and legal costs (which is the cost of the case being brought to court). She's not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc.

Having been through this myself (£29,000 down thanks!) but fortunately before it came to court because the insurance paid up at the first sense of ambiguity I can tell you its the house insurance you had at the time.  Thats not to say he had some of course but a later move to France shouldn't be relevant.

In my case I stopped and gave the f*cker first aid until the ambulance arrived. Different background this wasn't an iZombie  but it still ranckles, as we all end up paying via dearer insurance.

Bungle73 wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.

But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.

And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.

But it could so easily have gone the other way and we're not spouting off that all peds should have insurance are we?

On some of the legal points:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

The money should go to his appeal. When he wins there will be no costs or fine

Unfortunately appealing doesn't automatically mean you don't have to pay up in the meantime (though you can ask the court to order that).

bikeman01 wrote:

I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other's costs. 

The court has discretion as to who pays what costs, but the general rule is that the loser pays the winner's costs. In this case, the pedestrian was the only one who made a claim, and so 50/50 liability is presumably classified as a partial success on her claim. Had he also made a claim, then they would, to some extent, have neutralised one another. However,  the fact that it was 50/50 will be a factor in the amount of costs the court will actually allow her to recover from him. The court also looks at whether the costs claimed are proportionate to the amount in dispute. So even if her lawyers do get the full £100k they're claiming, it shouldn't all come from him - some will come from her (or, more likely I would have thought, ATE legal costs insurers). Unfortunately he would have to endure further court hearings (and the costs of those) in order to have her costs assessed.  

bendertherobot wrote:

 The case has been allocated to the fast or multi track. It seems, also, not to have been allocated to the road traffic accident fixed costs regime. Suggesting that the damages claim, while not yet assessed, is considerable. 

May not be much more than £10,000, which is the upper limit for the RTA fixed costs regime and the entry point for fast track claims. Not sure if the RTA scheme would have applied in any event because it's for claims involving a motor vehicle.

crazy-legs wrote:

 She's not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc. 

Just her lawyers unfortunately. The taxpaying public pays for the judge and court. (Save perhaps for a small contribution from the claimant in the court fee they pay)