Cyclist gets 48,000 damages

dited

A man who suffered arm injuries after coming off his mountain bike shortly after collecting it from a bicycle repair shop has been awarded damages of €48,000 at the High Court, including €7,000 in aggravated damages.

Piotr Lizanowicz (27), a cleaner with an address at Stratford Haven, Orwell Road, Rathgar, Dublin, had sued Hollingsworth Cycles Limited, Templeogue Village, Dublin, for alleged negligence and breach of contract relating to repairs carried out on the bike.

The company denied the claims.

Mr Lizanowicz, a native of Poland, told the court the bike was about six months old and he had left it with the defendant to have the brakes fixed and broken spokes repaired.

He said he had just collected it on April 20th 2009, having paid €54 for repairs, and was cycling down the Terenure Road when he heard a noise from the front wheel which appeared to lock. He was thrown over the handlebars fracturing his right elbow.

Having heard the evidence today, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said she effectively had to decide whether the plaintiff’s account of what happened was accurate or whether the incident was conjured up and faked for the purpose of getting money out of the defendants.

Mr Lizanowicz had essentially claimed, when the bike tyre was reinflated, there was no appropriate check to ensure the tyre and tubing were properly seated within the rim of the bike. It was claimed this lead to a situation where the tubing popped out while he was cycling along with the consequence it obstructed the wheel from rotating, leading to him going over the handlebars.

Having listened to the experts reports, the judge said she had, on balance, concluded the accident happened as suggested by Mr Lizanowicz. She accepted the plaintiff did not fabricate or invent the scenario put before the court, the judge said.

Ms Justice Dunne also said there could be no doubt the defence had unequivocally and unambiguously made the allegation of fraud against the plaintiff. It was in those circumstances she was awarding €7,000 aggravated damages.

In seeking aggravated damages, Micheal Byrne SC, for Mr Lizanowicz, said his client has been accused of an extremely serious criminal offence during the hearing which was more serious than the accident itself. It had been falsely alleged his client had taken photographs to fabricate the claims and this entitled his client to substantial aggravated damages.

Bernard McDonagh SC, for the defendant, said his side had had no opportunity to assess photographs taken after the accident which were produced at the hearing but not shown to the defence prior to the hearing.

Counsel asked for a stay on the award in the event of an appeal and Ms Justice Dunne agreed to this providing there was a payout of €20,000.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0218/breaking63.

Never been a big fan of the service from Hollingsworth myself, though I've never heard of the tube coming out of the wheel in the manner described above.

Alanstrainor

dited wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0218/breaking63.

Never been a big fan of the service from Hollingsworth myself, though I've never heard of the tube coming out of the wheel in the manner described above.

Crazy stuff, and i never would've imagined the tube popping out would've been able to completely lock the front wheel to the extent where it would throw you over the handlebars. But i suppose the experts in the case would no better than I.

omri

...ouch - for that bike shop

lescol

Last year my rear wheel locked up when the inner tube bulged out through a rip in the sidewall of the tyre. Lucky it wasn't the front!

kona

This is usually a problem with crap tyres, However, usually it will pop out fairly quick and very obviously.
Id have been of the opinion too taht it wouldnt be enough to flip the bike, perhaps it got caught up in the break arms or something. Very very harsh punishment too. The repair wasnt faulty , this is something that happens with crap tyres, and tyres that dont fit the rim. The customer must have collected the bike very soon after the tyre being inflated.

paddymacsporran

Why would collecting it soon after inflation be an issue?

Moreofthatjazz

frequently it takes time for a bed to seat properly if the rim and bead create enough friction... a situation easily resolved by a squirt of dilute fairy liquid... though if there is a twist or a kink in the bead it may inconveniently decide to pop much later than when the tyre has been inflated...

Schnell

Because the pressure usually gradually pushes the tyre bead off the rim. It can also happen if you start putting more pressure down on it though, as in by riding. I've only seen this happen with fairly poor quality tyres, but it's definitely a combination of carelessness as well. The same tyres can work fine if they're put on properly. If a bad tyre is badly put on...

recedite

A tube popping out and catching in the brake blocks would definitely throw the rider. It could only happen if the tyre was too big on the rim though. I only ever saw it on a kids bike with a tiny wheel. After about 20 psi one bead of the tyre would pop.
Gardaí should have impounded the bike. It easy to prove one way or the other. Just put the same tyre back on the wheel and reinflate. If it's too loose it will pop again every time at pressure. If not, he made the whole thing up.

Beasty

recedite wrote: »

Gardaí should have impounded the bike.

The Gardai are extremely unlikely to have attended the scene. In a situation like this the priority is normally getting the injured party treated. I am guessing thought was probably not even given to cause until some time after the incident

It is also likely that the reason this found it's way to court was there was simply a disagreement between the injured party and the shop (or more likely their insurers) as to cause - this is unlikely to have been an issue for the Gardai as it's normally a civil matter

Daegerty

48k?! claims are too high in this country

Beasty

Daegerty wrote: »

48k?! claims are too high in this country

It looks like the "injury" compensation was a bit less - €41k (the other €7k being for "false" claims made by the defendnts)

Most of these "incidents" never get to court, and are often settled either by the Personal Injuries Board, or out of court

I am guessing that the defendants chose not to go down the personal injuries board route (it's also open for the claimant to reject this, but this would normally be unwise, as it leaves the risk of losing in Court and having to pay both sides legal costs). If that is the case, they leave themselves at the mercy of the court if they lose. I guess what appear to be high compensation awards encourage the parties to settle "amicably".

Lumen

€40k seems a lot for a fractured elbow, but I guess if you're a cleaner and you lost your job over it in the current economy it's not difficult to imagine quite substantial losses. (speculation, obviously)

This is why businesses buy indemnity insurance - I think you'd normally have a case against the insurer rather than the shop. Maybe they skimped.

Profiler

Lumen wrote: »

€40k seems a lot for a fractured elbow, but I guess if you're a cleaner and you lost your job over it in the current economy it's not difficult to imagine quite substantial losses. (speculation, obviously)

Depends on the seriousness of the fracture and how well, or not as the case may be, it heals.

Pure speculation on my behalf here, but I would guess that Mr Lizanowicz may no longer have the full range of movement in his elbow.

Lumen wrote: »

This is why businesses buy indemnity insurance - I think you'd normally have a case against the insurer rather than the shop. Maybe they skimped.

The claim is always against the defendant which in this case is the bike shop. The defendant or defendants are usually named by court reporters once it is a matter of public record.

If they had public / products liability insurance then the Insurance company would cover them for the damages and the legal costs. Court reporters almost never name the Insurance company, the fact that one is not named not proof there is no insurer in the background.

bryangiggsy

<snip>

Beasty

Any more unfounded allegations will incur infractions/bans

Thanks

Beasty

mikemac

Surprised it went to the High Court, legal fees are huge
If you stick to the circuit court I think the max claim is 38k and not so much will be spent on the lawyers

48K seems huge but I'd guess he lost his job as a cleaner. When I worked in a ****ty job in a hotel we didn't get sick pay and you'd be let go if you missed a few days.
So the claim seems high but a lot is probably compensation for that

Profiler

feelingstressed wrote: »

Surprised it went to the High Court, legal fees are huge
If you stick to the circuit court I think the max claim is 38k and not so much will be spent on the lawyers

You are correct that the Circuit Court has a limit of €38,000 however the plaintiff's (injured party) legal team would decided which jurisdiction to issue in. If the injuries were serious enough then issuing in the High Court was the appropriate thing to do.

The fact that the judge awarded €41,000 for the injuries sustained (not including the €7,000 for aggravated damages) would prove issuing in the High Court was the correct decision.

feelingstressed wrote: »

48K seems huge but I'd guess he lost his job as a cleaner.

Again I'm speculating here but if I'd had a 25% to 50% reduction in the range of movement in my elbow at 27 years of age I'd think €41,000 for that is a small amount. He may not be able to work as a cleaner again so there could be some future loss of earnings included. We don't know how the €41k is broken down into heads of damages.

Beasty

From the Personal Injuries Board Estimator, a moderate elbow fracture with significant ongoing condition could warrant an award of between €23,800 and €65,500

kona

paddymacsporran wrote: »

Why would collecting it soon after inflation be an issue?

Because usually if they tyre is faulty, the tube pops out quite quickley. Also if it was lying around the shop for days, you would expect it to pop in the shop.

Either way, I feel sorry for both the partys involved, it should never have gotten to the high court. What the hell was the bike shop thinking saying the customer made it up, its a common enough issue with tyres, and puncture repair is bread and butter stuff for a bike shop.

blorg

As Kona says it is a common occurence when a tyre is replaced. It is not just cheap tyres, either, it can certainly happen due to negligent installation and has happened to me with the likes of Conti and Schwalbe.

As was claimed, it can happen if you do not check that the tyre bead is seated properly after re-inflation. There is even a specific warning about this in the instructions with some manufacturer's tyres- to inflate to a low PSI and check the bead before full inflation.

Some tyres on certain rims can be difficult to seat around the valve in particular- seating it there first, rather than finishing there, can help.

It has happened to me several times. As Kona says it normally pops before you take the bike out but once it did pop on the road after I had cycled 10km on the tyre. It has not happened since I inflate to low pressure and check the bead seat before finishing.

bryangiggsy

Apologies for going off thread here but if a cyclist injures himself after going into a pothole on the road...who is liable?

Oldlegs

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Apologies for going off thread here but if a cyclist injures himself after going into a pothole on the road...who is liable?

I would suggest that going into the pothole would be due to the Cyclist's action (and lack of attention to the road surface). If, however, the Cyclist had paid a party to fix the road it would be reasonable to expect that the road did not have any potholes. In this case the contracted party might be held responsible, although the 'due care and attention' issue could mitigate the full liability.

Back to the OP, the tyre popping would not have been caused by any lack of DC&A on the part of the Cyclist.

So much for saturday morning legalities

Chips Lovell

Very similar thing happened to a colleague of mine. She left her bike into a shop in the Rathmines area. Seems her rear wheel wasn't put in place correctly and it locked up, throwing her over the bars.

Profiler

el tonto wrote: »

Very similar thing happened to a colleague of mine. She left her bike into a shop in the Rathmines area. Seems her rear wheel wasn't put in place correctly and it locked up, throwing her over the bars.

Her rear wheel locked up and threw her (presumably forward) over the handlebars

How did that happen?

zil

I came across an incident on a mountain bike descent. I got talking to the guys and they told me that the fellow had just bought a brand new bike from the lbs and this was his first time on it. Supposedly the rear wheel came loose and popped out of the frame and his chain stays and (now mangeled) derailleur were kicking up rooster tails from dragging in the dirt. Luckily the guy this happened to was taking it quite handy on the descent so he was able to somehow control himself and stop without falling off but just shows that it's your body on the line so even if it's a brand new bike check everything yourself.

BostonB

I assume a shop like that would be covered by insurance?

barrabus

BostonB wrote: »

I assume a shop like that would be covered by insurance?

yes -

mvpr

barrabus wrote: »

yes -

And if the fault was due to a faulty tyre (as opposed to any negligent workmanship on behalf of Hollingsworth) they could have joined the tyre manufacturer as a third party to the proceedings. Doesnt sound as if this incident could have been caused by fitting a tyre incorrectly.

seamus

mvpr wrote: »

Doesnt sound as if this incident could have been caused by fitting a tyre incorrectly.

It definitely could have. If the tyre wasn't inflated massively high (~30psi) and the bead was on the verge of catching on the rim (i.e. it could have gone either way) then this problem wouldn't manifest itself until the bike was being ridden. The valve issue in particular as blorg mentions means that the tyre can get pinched between the valve and the rim. Usually this means that the tyre pops straight away, but if it's not at a high pressure, it may not pop out.

If it's being ridden hard, then the tyre is more likely to slot into the rim or pop out very quickly. If the guy has his saddle all the way down, knees out, only crawling along, then there could be insufficient pressure on the tyre to cause it to pop out - he'd easily get as far as Terenure without issue. That would also explain how there was enough force to send him over the handlebars; He's crawling along, stands up to get through a set of lights, tyre pops out, catches on the brake and because he's going so slowly, it stops the bike dead and he goes down.
Supposition of course, but his description of what happened is fairly consistent. If he knew enough about bikes to make up a story that plausible, he wouldn't have given his bike to Hollingsworth a bike shop to fix his brakes.

The sorest part of any bike collision is not the road rash, it's the part where you fall 4 feet onto tarmac/concrete with no protection. That can happen as much at 13km/h as at 33km/h.

It was a six month old bike with broken spokes, so I'm going to guess that it's probably quite cheap. Wouldn't surprise me if the tyre had been faulty, but the shop probably burned their bridges on chasing that one up when they made the ridiculous decision to blame the guy.

blorg

@mvpr- it is common and is most often caused by fitting the tyre incorrectly, rather than a manufacturing defect in the tyre. The bike shop would know this well and it is very bad that they would suggest the guy was attempting fraud. To what extent this approach came from the shop or from their insurers and lawyers I would not be sure.

Most have gone bang while I have been in the process of pumping up, or very soon after. The one that went bang after 10km was a Continental GP4000 at 110PSI incidentally.

C3PO

The cynic in me thought the whole thing sounded a bit "dodgy" but it's interesting to hear that other people have had similar issues - I'll be more careful when seating tyre in future (and when forming opinions)!

mvpr

seamus wrote: »

It definitely could have. If the tyre wasn't inflated massively high (~30psi) and the bead was on the verge of catching on the rim (i.e. it could have gone either way) then this problem wouldn't manifest itself until the bike was being ridden. The valve issue in particular as blorg mentions means that the tyre can get pinched between the valve and the rim. Usually this means that the tyre pops straight away, but if it's not at a high pressure, it may not pop out.

If it's being ridden hard, then the tyre is more likely to slot into the rim or pop out very quickly. If the guy has his saddle all the way down, knees out, only crawling along, then there could be insufficient pressure on the tyre to cause it to pop out - he'd easily get as far as Terenure without issue. That would also explain how there was enough force to send him over the handlebars; He's crawling along, stands up to get through a set of lights, tyre pops out, catches on the brake and because he's going so slowly, it stops the bike dead and he goes down.
Supposition of course, but his description of what happened is fairly consistent. If he knew enough about bikes to make up a story that plausible, he wouldn't have given his bike to Hollingsworth a bike shop to fix his brakes.

The sorest part of any bike collision is not the road rash, it's the part where you fall 4 feet onto tarmac/concrete with no protection. That can happen as much at 13km/h as at 33km/h.

It was a six month old bike with broken spokes, so I'm going to guess that it's probably quite cheap. Wouldn't surprise me if the tyre had been faulty, but the shop probably burned their bridges on chasing that one up when they made the ridiculous decision to blame the guy.

blorg wrote: »

@mvpr- it is common and is most often caused by fitting the tyre incorrectly, rather than a manufacturing defect in the tyre. The bike shop would know this well and it is very bad that they would suggest the guy was attempting fraud. To what extent this approach came from the shop or from their insurers and lawyers I would not be sure.

Most have gone bang while I have been in the process of pumping up, or very soon after. The one that went bang after 10km was a Continental GP4000 at 110PSI incidentally.

Points taken!

kona

seamus wrote: »

It was a six month old bike with broken spokes, so I'm going to guess that it's probably quite cheap. Wouldn't surprise me if the tyre had been faulty, but the shop probably burned their bridges on chasing that one up when they made the ridiculous decision to blame the guy.

^^^ Thats a good point, it was likely a piece of crap BSO. Ah well, 48k should get him something decent.

Although, a bit of a random observation, I find I fix alot more bikes owned by eastern europeans with broken and loose spokes than any other group. Its something I have noticed, and it happens on decent wheels as well as crappy BSO stuff, These guys pop 4 or 5 at a time. Rarely it would be just the one. Dont know what they do be doing!

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

Some tyres on certain rims can be difficult to seat around the valve in particular- seating it there first, rather than finishing there, can help.

I've always found it better to seat the tyre at the valve area last. Slightly inflating the tube first makes it easier to ensure that the tyre bead doesn't pinch the tube as you work your way around the rim fitting the tyre. Invariably you have to completely deflate the tube to seat the last section of tyre and if this is at the valve area then you can shove the valve back through the rim to ensure that the valve+tube is pushed well into the tyre and that the bead can't pinch that section of tube at it sits down into the rim. That method provides the two benefits of helping prevent the tube being pinched and also allowing the tyre bead a clear path to sit well down into the rim all the way round.

I believe that a technique used with motorbike tyres was to forcefully bounce the wheel (with tyre inflated) on the ground, working your way around the full circumference of the tyre, to help seat the tyre properly. It works with MTB tyres too, to an extent - it is certainly preferable to avoid having to do so in the first place but I've had to resort to it myself in the past and it saved me having to deflate and re-inflate the tyre.

victorcarrera

doozerie wrote: »

I believe that a technique used with motorbike tyres was to forcefully bounce the wheel (with tyre inflated) on the ground, working your way around the full circumference of the tyre, to help seat the tyre properly. It works with MTB tyres too, to an extent - it is certainly preferable to avoid having to do so in the first place but I've had to resort to it myself in the past and it saved me having to deflate and re-inflate the tyre.

Professional automotive and motorcycle tyre fitters use a lubricant and over inflation to pop the beading in to place.
Putting talc on the tube could have prevented this accident though.
New tubes have a light coating on them but I don't think repair shops bother to use it on repaired or reused tubes.

BostonB

I seem to remember something about rubbing chalk over a new patch/repair probably similar idea to using talc.

TinyExplosions

doozerie wrote: »

I believe that a technique used with motorbike tyres was to forcefully bounce the wheel (with tyre inflated) on the ground, working your way around the full circumference of the tyre, to help seat the tyre properly.

That's what I do on my road bike too -not sure where I picked the idea up, but a few bounces around the circumference, and then check the pressure is how I normally do it

kona

Lads there is no need to use lube on every single repair, the only times i use talc power is for extremely tight tyres. (old schwinn bikes in particular are a disaster)

recedite

BostonB wrote: »

I seem to remember something about rubbing chalk over a new patch/repair probably similar idea to using talc.

Ha is that the reason for the tiny cheese-grater and the little cube of chalky rock in some repair kits? I always throw them out, like the piece of rubber tube, which I think is a spare for an obsolete type of valve.

BostonB

(AFAIK) its to rough the tube up so the patch sticks...

doozerie

BostonB wrote: »

I seem to remember something about rubbing chalk over a new patch/repair probably similar idea to using talc.

I've always assumed that the rubbing chalk was simply to cover any exposed adhesive, after fitting the patch, to ensure that the tube didn't get glued to the inside of the tyre.

seamus

doozerie wrote: »

I've always assumed that the rubbing chalk was simply to cover any exposed adhesive, after fitting the patch, to ensure that the tube didn't get glued to the inside of the tyre.

That's exactly what it's for. The tube will stick to the inside of the tyre if you don't do this, happened to me many a time.
There should be a bit of sandpaper for roughing up the tube and a quite frankly useless grater and piece of chalk to get some dust to "dry up" any adhesive.

Keela

Just wondering if anyone can offer some information. My mother recently settled a personal injury claim out of court through personal injury board using a solicitor. My query is that there was an engineers report required which was €1600 Inc. Vat, however, when the solicitor was invoicing my mother for same, he put the €1600 figure on the invoice ex. Vat. Also the PIAB of €50 was entered on the invoice ex. VAT. This left me wondering, the the legal fee of €3500 ex. was sufficient of insuffient. The solicitor did not have to go to court, basically the work he did was arrange an engineers report, a medical report, 4 visits by my mother to his office, apx 10 letters and 10 phone calls??? He seams to me like he indirectly charged her a fee of 10%. I know percentage fees are not supposed to apply anymore but looking at the figures he took a total of 10% and legal fees on the invoice meerely stated legal fees and were not itemised? Can anyone shed some light on this for me please.

Beasty

Keela wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone can offer some information. My mother recently settled a personal injury claim out of court through personal injury board using a solicitor. My query is that there was an engineers report required which was €1600 Inc. Vat, however, when the solicitor was invoicing my mother for same, he put the €1600 figure on the invoice ex. Vat. Also the PIAB of €50 was entered on the invoice ex. VAT. This left me wondering, the the legal fee of €3500 ex. was sufficient of insuffient. The solicitor did not have to go to court, basically the work he did was arrange an engineers report, a medical report, 4 visits by my mother to his office, apx 10 letters and 10 phone calls??? He seams to me like he indirectly charged her a fee of 10%. I know percentage fees are not supposed to apply anymore but looking at the figures he took a total of 10% and legal fees on the invoice meerely stated legal fees and were not itemised? Can anyone shed some light on this for me please.

I suggest you try the legal discussion forum

Thanks

Beasty