The worm turns- cyclist pays damages for injury to others
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The worm turns- cyclist pays damages for injury to others
... and, gets knocked-out in the bargain (legal fees were the biggest cost).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london
#2
Full Member
It is actually a very telling example of how indoctrinatory regimes, like GB or USA, whip their victims into forced compliance with the regime's behavioral requirements, especially when it comes to matter of personal principles or beliefs. Mr Hazeldean explained very clearly that did not make a claim because of his dislike of the “claim culture”. Well, the regime has a built-in "corrective measure" designed to punish exactly that kind of non-compliance.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times
in
118 Posts
He didn't want to file a counter claim even though he knew he should have. Well, too bad. You got what you ask for, no payout.
Likes For CycleryNorth81:
#4
Full Member
Sounds like something truly Orwellian in a way.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 877
Bikes: custom Cyclery North (Chicago), Schwinn Circuit
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked 203 Times
in
118 Posts
Very interesting example of "bizarre logic". It basically implies that a virtually random person can "ask" for your money. And if you don't ask back for at least the same amount, you are liable to pay. "You snooze, you lose". "You didn't want to file a counter claim". "You got what you ask for".
Sounds like something truly Orwellian in a way.
Sounds like something truly Orwellian in a way.
#6
Callipygian Connoisseur
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 564 Post(s)
Liked 350 Times
in
190 Posts
So he failed to seek out legal representation, failed to file a counter claim (even though he knew he should), and essentially placed himself at the mercy of the court. The result, unsurprisingly, is that he lost and yet he’s worried about the potential impact on other cyclists. I suppose if other cyclists finding themselves in similar circumstances handle the situation as poorly as he did then they should expect similar results.
Apparently the young lady involved understands their legal system and acted accordingly. He had the same opportunity, yet declined because he doesn’t like their “claim culture.” If he wanted to stand on his principles then so be it, but he should have been comfortable with the potential outcome. I hardly see how cyclists in general are somehow at increased risk.
-Kedosto
Apparently the young lady involved understands their legal system and acted accordingly. He had the same opportunity, yet declined because he doesn’t like their “claim culture.” If he wanted to stand on his principles then so be it, but he should have been comfortable with the potential outcome. I hardly see how cyclists in general are somehow at increased risk.
-Kedosto
Likes For Kedosto:
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The judge, Shanti Mauger, said both were equally to blame for the incident on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not.
The judge could have also have said, if they both are equally to blame they both are equally responsible and if the claim was good for one it also should be good for the other, whether filed or not-- which of course cancel one another out. That makes more sense.
Last edited by McBTC; 06-21-19 at 08:14 PM.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,291
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,910 Times
in
1,884 Posts
The judge is to compare the case with provided legal relevant proof. Not to create a case for the lack of effort on ones side for equal dispute.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
-Oh Hey!
Likes For Troul:
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#10
☢
... and, gets knocked-out in the bargain (legal fees were the biggest cost).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nsation-london
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nsation-london
In any event, the judge is stupid if by no other reason than this statement: "The judge said Hazeldean was “a calm and reasonable road user” but was still liable to pay damages, adding: “Cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”
Gong! How can any person cyclist or otherwise be held to that type of a standard? Babysitting the world would be a full-time job; you also would never get anywhere.
Besides, if she claims they're both guilty why is one being fined and the other is not. Regardless of them putting in a claim, it should be invalidated or dismissed. A judge in the U.S. could deny the claim on those grounds. On the other hand, maybe that's how it works in the UK?
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,682
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 776 Times
in
402 Posts
Very interesting example of "bizarre logic". It basically implies that a virtually random person can "ask" for your money. And if you don't ask back for at least the same amount, you are liable to pay. "You snooze, you lose". "You didn't want to file a counter claim". "You got what you ask for".
Sounds like something truly Orwellian in a way.
Sounds like something truly Orwellian in a way.
Two people were involved in an accident that managed to find its way into the complicated legal system.
How in the world does that equate to random people taking your money?
#12
Callipygian Connoisseur
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 564 Post(s)
Liked 350 Times
in
190 Posts
Believe it or not... like it or not... that’s how it works. The attitude is process=justice. The only thing to complain about is if the process wasn’t followed correctly. If one doesn’t like the process, or believes it to be unjust, then one can work to change the process. Laypeople struggle to understand it, but that’s how first world legal systems work.
-Kedosto
-Kedosto
#13
☢
Believe it or not... like it or not... that’s how it works. The attitude is process=justice. The only thing to complain about is if the process wasn’t followed correctly. If one doesn’t like the process, or believes it to be unjust, then one can work to change the process. Laypeople struggle to understand it, but that’s how first world legal systems work.
-Kedosto
-Kedosto
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times
in
706 Posts
It will be appealed and reversed. The legal precedent of making a person obeying traffic laws liable to a person who violated them would cause havoc when used in every motor vehicle accident case then presented. Judges make wrong decisions all the time.
#15
☢
Hopefully, the cyclist will get competent counsel.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The judge held the cyclist 100% responsible for all damages and costs despite the finding that no one of them was any more guilty than the other. A jury could not have done worse, even if a jury concluded that the cyclist was 100% responsible.
#17
Sophomore Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1628 Post(s)
Liked 1,057 Times
in
631 Posts
The judge, Shanti Mauger, said both were equally to blame for the incident on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not.
Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.
Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_costs
In the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, the losing side is usually ordered to pay the winning side's costs. This acts as a significant disincentive to bringing forward court cases. Usually, the winning party is not able to recover from the losing party the full amount of his or her own solicitor's (attorney's) costs, and has to pay the shortfall out of his or her own pocket. The loser pays principle does not apply to the United States legal system, although a separate system does operate there. In cases in the federal court system, Title 28, section 1920 of the United States Code, provides:
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.
A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,215
Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
51 Posts
A) I think the biggest issue is the fact that seemingly such a small case could rack up 100k GBP in legal fees.
B) The cyclist either had incredibly poor legal representations, or decided not to take the course of legal action he should have to protect himself. That is on him
C) Judges do not have a duty to justice, they have a duty towards due process and rule of law. By all accounts I can read, this case played out exactly how process dictates it should have. See point B if you have a problem with that.
B) The cyclist either had incredibly poor legal representations, or decided not to take the course of legal action he should have to protect himself. That is on him
C) Judges do not have a duty to justice, they have a duty towards due process and rule of law. By all accounts I can read, this case played out exactly how process dictates it should have. See point B if you have a problem with that.
#19
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The fact that this is between a pedestrian and a bicyclist may be adding confusion (especially since this is BikeForums!). But imagine if two pedestrians had come around a blind corner, and walked into each other, and knocked each other out, and each was found to be 50% at-fault. I think the same judgement would happen.
As for why the cyclist doesn't counter-sue, I'm not sure that will fix anything. When the pedestrian sued the cylist, the cyclist had to pay £4k in damages (concussion + stitches in lip), plus £96k to pay for her legal fees. If he counter-sues the pedestrian, maybe he'll be awarded £3k in damages (concussion, but no cut lip), plus £96k to pay for his own legal fees. In that case, he ends-up losing £98k and she ends-up losing £94k.
It's a no-win situation (except for the lawyers, who are very happy by now). The only winning strategy is for both of them to recognize that if each of them is even a tiny bit responsible, then they will both lose more money paying lawyers than they can gain from minor injury damages. Even if one person was only 10% liable, paying a 10% portion of the other's legal fees would cost more than they could receive in damages for minor injuries. Maybe the cyclist realized the futility of filing a lawsuit, but the pedestrian didn't. In that case, I think it's the cyclist's civic duty to educate the pedestrian, by filing a counter-suit. He won't avoid the £100k judgement, but maybe he can hire his cousin Vinny as attorney, and at least get a few beers out of it .
Last edited by specialgreen; 06-24-19 at 09:30 PM.
#20
☢
The fact that this is between a pedestrian and a bicyclist may be adding confusion (especially since this is BikeForums!). But imagine if two pedestrians had come around a blind corner, and walked into each other, and knocked each other out, and each was found to be 50% at-fault. I think the same judgement would happen.
As for why the cyclist doesn't counter-sue, I'm not sure that will fix anything. When the pedestrian sued the cylist, the cyclist had to pay £4k in damages (concussion + stitches in lip), plus £96k to pay for her legal fees. If he counter-sues the pedestrian, maybe he'll be awarded £3k in damages (concussion, but no cut lip), plus £96k to pay for his own legal fees.
In that case, he ends-up losing £98k and she ends-up losing £94k. It's a no-win situation (except for the lawyers, who are very happy by now). The only winning strategy is for both of them to recognize that if each of them is even a tiny bit responsible, then they will both lose more money paying lawyers than they can gain from minor injury damages. Even if one person was only 10% liable, paying a 10% portion of the other's legal fees would cost more than they could receive in damages for minor injuries.
Imagine that you bumped into someone at a fast-food restaurant: you knocked their burger on the floor, and they knocked your fries on the floor. You'd both have to be pretty stupid to think that a pair of lawsuits seeking $3.50 and $1.20 in damages is a good solution.
As for why the cyclist doesn't counter-sue, I'm not sure that will fix anything. When the pedestrian sued the cylist, the cyclist had to pay £4k in damages (concussion + stitches in lip), plus £96k to pay for her legal fees. If he counter-sues the pedestrian, maybe he'll be awarded £3k in damages (concussion, but no cut lip), plus £96k to pay for his own legal fees.
In that case, he ends-up losing £98k and she ends-up losing £94k. It's a no-win situation (except for the lawyers, who are very happy by now). The only winning strategy is for both of them to recognize that if each of them is even a tiny bit responsible, then they will both lose more money paying lawyers than they can gain from minor injury damages. Even if one person was only 10% liable, paying a 10% portion of the other's legal fees would cost more than they could receive in damages for minor injuries.
Imagine that you bumped into someone at a fast-food restaurant: you knocked their burger on the floor, and they knocked your fries on the floor. You'd both have to be pretty stupid to think that a pair of lawsuits seeking $3.50 and $1.20 in damages is a good solution.
Another instance I'm walking along minding my own business and some gomer stretches out his arm like a drawbridge holding a cell phone right at the moment I walk by and it gets knocked out of his hands. I can't imagine on my worst day being that oblivious to the world around me. No law suit either time.
Maybe in this case, the cyclist realized the futility of a lawsuit, but the pedestrian didn't. In that case, I think it's the cyclist's civic duty to educate the pedestrian, by filing a counter-suit. He won't avoid the £100k judgement, but maybe he can hire his 2nd cousin as attorney, and at least get a few beers out of it .
Likes For KraneXL:
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Nunymare
Advocacy & Safety
46
02-19-15 07:21 AM
DX-MAN
Advocacy & Safety
161
04-12-12 08:00 PM