Forum menu
It does seem harsh.
It's consistently applied though.
Years ago, my friend had been boozing all day and was off his face. It was late at night and he was wandering home.
For no reason, he just sprinted out into the road from between two parked cars and into the path of an oncoming car.
Driver was going fairly slowly, but still hit him, despite slamming on the brakes, and sent him up onto the bonnet and windscreen.
He damaged his shoulder and was in hospital with cuts and bruises for a week or so.
The driver was devastated.
Police did prosecute, but at a very low level and my mate received compensation from the driver's insurer, albeit reduced for the contributory negligence of being shitfaced.
Having been there that night, pretty sure natural justice wasn't done. There was absolutely nothing that the driver could have done to avoid the collision.
At least the driver had insurance to settle the claim.
dissonance I don't doubt it can be different/more complex in other situations.
I do wonder what she initially sued for.
Notes on the trial tweeted by the pedestrian's lawyer: https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143253185840189441?s=19
The final witness was Mr H. He had been cycling over London Bridge and had waited at the lights before it turned to green. He told the police that he was overtaken by the Defendant after the traffic lights. He said that the Defendant sounded his airhorn at that point and“cycled towards a large number of pedestrians who were still crossing the road……..The cyclist did not slow down and I heard him shout something towards the pedestrians. I then saw the cyclist’s bike strike a lady on the left side knocking her to the ground…….”
Could be seen as riding like a dick then also.
Interesting that ^^ the fact that the guy rides (sorry, rode - he lives in France now) in London blasting his airhorn to get peds to move, does make him sound like a bit of a dick. But also a product of the environment he rode in - trying to make progress while loads of people cross the road without looking must be pretty frustrating... but then again, to be expected in London at rush hour.
Could be seen as riding like a dick then also.
Was my impression from the first news report. I compared it to driving a car into a crowd of people. Even given a green light and beeping a horn you’d be unlikely to do it and would be liable if you injured someone.
(I’ve a feeling that I might have got impatient if I couldn’t ride through on a green, and start riding through gaps, but be very prepared to stop, with a loud huff and eye roll!)
https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/
The Claimant relied on Mr H as her only witness on the issue of liability. Mr H attended trial and was cross examined by the Defendant’s barrister.
Mr H’s evidence included a voice memo that he had recorded on his mobile phone minutes after the accident in order to provide a more detailed account than that recorded by the police. His witness statement expanded upon his police statement. He described in Court that there was a ‘throng’ of pedestrians 5 or 6 deep crossing the road, and estimated that there were 50 people in this group. He described that he slowed his bicycle because he felt that it was unsafe to proceed with people still crossing.
Mr H said that he was overtaken by the Defendant, who was travelling at around 20mph and had sounded his airhorn. Mr H considered that the Defendant accelerated as he approached the crossing. He saw the Defendant collide with the Claimant who was crossing the road. He remained of the view that the Defendant was to blame.
Tooting your horn before going full chat into a big group of pedestrians doesn't sound like riding with due care and attention to me, even if it is normal behaviour for London.
Have to say, the defendant must have had a good witness on his own side to have avoided going down for 100% liability based on that description.
Quite glad I didn't rush to donate to his crowdfunding cause after the initial headlines!
Never do I donate to things like these however I am feeling more inclined to do so by the day.
Sad day...
even if it is normal behaviour for London.
It isn’t.
the defendant must have had a good witness on his own side to have avoided going down for 100% liability based on that description.
He had three saying “there was nothing he could do”