Drunk man falls off bike drunk, gets €20 grand!

Tenzor07

Had to check it was not April 1st!

Drunk guy decides to cycle home locked, falls off bike gets clipped by a car which failed to stop and gets a big payout! Mad!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-who-fell-off-bike-after-enthusiastically-celebrating-paddys-day-awarded-20000-in-damages-3353483.html

Chips Lovell

Judge Deery awarded O’Brien €20,336 damages but said, because of the situation he had put himself in at the time he would deduct 30 per cent for contributory negligence, reducing the amount to €14,235.

So if he hadn't been drunk he would have received more. Just because someone's drunk doesn't excuse a hit and run.

Tenzor07

Well he was highly irresponsible by getting on a bike at 3am while drunk and stumbling around the road he should be just thankful he is still alive or not in a wheelchair for life, so then pursuing through the courts for damages is a bit much considering how stupid he was...

juan.kerr

Who is paying this, MIBI?

Did he have any lights on the bike or reflective clothing on I wonder?

ezra_pound

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well he was highly irresponsible by getting on a bike at 3am while drunk and stumbling around the road he should be just thankful he is still alive or not in a wheelchair for life, so then pursuing through the courts for damages is a bit much considering how stupid he was...

Yes but the driver was negligent in failing to control their car and stop when the man in question was lying in the middle of the road.

Otherwise there would be serious road kill in the city centre every Saturday night.

ford2600

Being drunk doesn't make him invisible to a motorist with properly functioning lights, and perhaps street lighting

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well he was highly irresponsible by getting on a bike at 3am while drunk and stumbling around the road he should be just thankful he is still alive or not in a wheelchair for life, so then pursuing through the courts for damages is a bit much considering how stupid he was...

Chips Lovell

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well he was highly irresponsible by getting on a bike at 3am while drunk and stumbling around the road he should be just thankful he is still alive or not in a wheelchair for life, so then pursuing through the courts for damages is a bit much considering how stupid he was...

The judgement did acknowledge that though. Essentially it's saying he's 30 per cent to blame, motorist 70 per cent.

DirkVoodoo

I think people are getting this wrong. He wasn't cycling the bike when he was hit. He had fallen off, got up and was hit by a car that failed to stop.

The car hitting him and not stopping after is what the damages were awarded for. This was reduced due to his contributory negligence of not being in a fit condition to cycle.

I don't see how lights/high-viz come into it unless he was struck by the car while riding the bike.

I don't see too many people wearing high-viz when they stagger home from town. Maybe pubs should be obliged to hand it out?

ezra_pound

juan.kerr wrote: »

Who is paying this, MIBI?

Did he have any lights on the bike or reflective clothing on I wonder?

Presumably the driver had insurance?

I fail to see thes significance of whether or not he wore reflective clothing.

cdaly_

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if he hadn't been drunk he would have received more. Just because someone's drunk doesn't excuse a hit and run.

I'd have to assume he fell into the path of the car due to being drunk and was otherwise unlikely to have done so. That gets him the contributory negligence bit.

ezra_pound

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Had to check it was not April 1st!

Drunk guy decides to cycle home locked, falls off bike gets clipped by a car which failed to stop and gets a big payout! Mad!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/man-who-fell-off-bike-after-enthusiastically-celebrating-paddys-day-awarded-20000-in-damages-3353483.html

Can't see anything strange with that., I'm afraid.

DirkVoodoo

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'd have to assume he fell into the path of the car due to being drunk and was otherwise unlikely to have done so. That gets him the contributory negligence bit.

It doesn't sound like that really. It says he fell, and went to get back up. If you were drunk, that could take a bit of time to do. My impression is that the car was nowhere near him when he fell.

All guesses, but it's the only way the ruling makes sense. Falling into the path of a car travelling at the speed limit because you are cycling home drunk would hardly be the fault of the motorist.

ezra_pound

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

It doesn't sound like that really. It says he fell, and went to get back up. If you were drunk, that could take a bit of time to do. My impression is that the car was nowhere near him when he fell.

All guesses, but it's the only way the ruling makes sense. Falling into the path of a car travelling at the speed limit because you are cycling home drunk would hardly be the fault of the motorist.

Hmmm

Thats why you're meant to keep a safe distance.

washman3

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if he hadn't been drunk he would have received more. Just because someone's drunk doesn't excuse a hit and run.

its an 'alleged' hit and run. i dont really blame the drunk cyclist or the 'alleged' hit and run driver for this award of €20k. rather my anger is directed at the judge who probably lives in a 'gated abode' completely isolated from reality, reaching decisions that confirm that we live in an absolute banana republic.:mad:

Chips Lovell

What do you mean "alleged" hit and run? The court found he'd been hit by a car that failed to stop.

el tel

I wonder what on earth "unhelpful" means in the contect of "the CCTV footage of the incident was unhelpful"?

It would seem on the basis of a kidney injury and the testimony of a very drunk man with questionable judgement and recollection, the court have accepted he was hit by a car?

I want to see a forensic medical report.

That said, there's only so much a newspaper report can convey in such a short piece.

Chips Lovell

I have to knock off shortly, so I'll just leave this warning here, given the way this thread appears to be going.

You can't use boards to accuse a named individual of things like fraud and perjury.

Thank you.

Lusk Doyle

el tel wrote: »

I wonder what on earth "unhelpful" means in the contect of "the CCTV footage of the incident was unhelpful"?

It would seem on the basis of a kidney injury and the testimony of a very drunk man with questionable judgement and recollection, the court have accepted he was hit by a car?

I want to see a forensic medical report.

You're not entitled to see a forensic medical report.

washman3

<snip>

washman3

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I have to knock off shortly, so I'll just leave this warning here, given the way this thread appears to be going.

You can't use boards to accuse a named individual of things like fraud and perjury.

Thank you.

Who is accusing anybody of fraud and perjury??
we have a case here that was'nt properly challenged in court and its costing insured drivers of this country €20,000
This is one of the main reasons why insurance is a total rip-off.
The plaintiff was given a free ride in court as the sum involved was considered too small to challenge. If he had filed for an award of €100,000 the case would be fought for tooth-and-nail. And i doubt very much if it would then be declared 70%-30% fault.
This is the real issue here.!!

Lumen

Reading comprehension fail.

20K was not paid out.

ashleey

Surely 'the driver failed to stop' is the primary problem here? If he had stopped then the mitigating factors would then be more of an issue but there is no mitigation in a hit and run, surely?

Lumen

ashleey wrote: »

Surely 'the driver failed to stop' is the primary problem here? If he had stopped then the mitigating factors would then be more of an issue but there is no mitigation in a hit and run, surely?

Indeed, the alternative thread title would be...

"Hit and run driver gets off with a €14k insurance claim after mowing down pedestrian and driving off".

cast_iron

washman3 wrote: »

we have a case here that was'nt properly challenged in court and its costing insured drivers of this country €20,000

Were you at the court? How would you know that from that short article?

The plaintiff was given a free ride in court as the sum involved was considered too small to challenge. If he had filed for an award of €100,000 the case would be fought for tooth-and-nail. And i doubt very much if it would then be declared 70%-30% fault.

Perhaps it was a €20k award because that was judged to be the fair cost to the plaintiff. Are you suggesting the amount was chosen because it was felt the be the magic number the plaintiff would get away with. Again, I'm amazed how you seem to know the facts of this case better than anyone else.

washman3

Lumen wrote: »

Reading comprehension fail.

20K was not paid out.

Absolutely brilliant deduction...:D
€14,000 approx was paid out which is 70% of €20,000
Read the article again.!!
The cyclist was 'docked' €6,000 because of his 'circumstances' at the time.
Again, not the issue. The issue is that the award went virtually unchallenged.

washman3

cast_iron wrote: »

Were you at the court? How would you know that from that short article?

Perhaps it was a €20k award because that was judged to be the fair cost to the plaintiff. Are you suggesting the amount was chosen because it was felt the be the magic number the plaintiff would get away with. Again, I'm amazed how you seem to know the facts of this case better than anyone else.

Irish people need to be educated in the way insurance companies and the judicary operate in cases like this. Maybe then they would wake up and smell the coffee and understand why insurance policies here are way out of proportion to our European neighbours.
The full details of this case are availabe. i'll try to post a link.

ThisRegard

Serious kidney damage? I would put that down to drinking ten cans of Bud piss. It's the brewery that should be paying out.

Savage93

juan.kerr wrote: »

Who is paying this, MIBI?

Did he have any lights on the bike or reflective clothing on I wonder?

MIBI is you and me, asshole should have gotten a jail sentence not €14k:mad:

Captain Havoc

Was the driver in court to defend himself?

ezra_pound

Savage93 wrote: »

MIBI is you and me, asshole should have gotten a jail sentence not €14k:mad:

Why do you think mibi is paying?

washman3

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Was the driver in court to defend himself?

No. the alleged driver was never found. the compensation awarded comes from M.I.B.I.
Thats the fund we all pay a levy of circa €40-€50 a year into for ununsured drivers. But this case is unique. The cyclist (who was very drunk and disoriantated) claims he was clipped my a motorist who failed to stop.
The judge agreed that the kidney damage he suffered could not have been caused by a fall from the bicycle that the cyclist suffered just seconds later.
No witnesses or proper cctv was available to confirm or deny the facts.

buffalo

Savage93 wrote: »

MIBI is you and me, asshole should have gotten a jail sentence not €14k:mad:

The victim of a hit and run should be jailed? Really? And the guy who hit him should get the €14,000 I suppose.

washman3

buffalo wrote: »

The victim of a hit and run should be jailed? Really? And the guy who hit him should get the €14,000 I suppose.

If the car driver had seen this very drunk cyclist, swerved rapidly to avoid him and collided with a pole receiving fatal injuries where would your sympathy lie then.? would you still consider the pissed drunk cyclist the victim.?

Captain Havoc

washman3 wrote: »

If the car driver had seen this very drunk cyclist, swerved rapidly to avoid him and collided with a pole receiving fatal injuries where would your sympathy lie then.? would you still consider the pissed drunk cyclist the victim.?

If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.

petethedrummer

washman3 wrote: »

If the car driver had seen this very drunk cyclist, swerved rapidly to avoid him and collided with a pole receiving fatal injuries where would your sympathy lie then.? would you still consider the pissed drunk cyclist the victim.?

My sympathies would lie with the Polish lad.

washman3

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.

And she could claim €20,000 for being pissed drunk in the middle of a public road in the early hours while in charge of a bicycle i suppose...

Little wonder we're the laughing stock of Europe..:o

Captain Havoc

washman3 wrote: »

And she could claim €20,000 for being pissed drunk in the middle of a public road in the early hours while in charge of a bicycle i suppose...

Little wonder we're the laughing stock of Europe..:o

There's a big what if to your argument. Why did the driver flee the scene? It's not illegal to be drunk in this country and the victim wasn't riding the bike at the time. It's a despicable act to hit a pedestrian and leave the scene of the accident, the condition of the victim is irrelevant. I would imagine if the driver had of remained at the scene, they may of been able to defend themselves but they chose to flee. The victim had nobody to refute his version of events.

ford2600

He was drunk. He wasn't invisible.

Driver should have seen him and been able to avoid him. He shouldn't have left scene.

Case was fought. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.

On Plaintiffs evidence (there was no other witnesses) he must have been off bike for a couple of seconds at least trying to get up, what was motorist doing in those seconds?

Whst is judge to do in absence of any other evidence? Call Plaintiff a liar?

No idea how his injuries were cakculated at 20k, someone else may help.

Felt judge could have went harder on contributory negligence, but driver has to bear some responsibility on basis of evidence available

washman3 wrote: »

And she could claim €20,000 for being pissed drunk in the middle of a public road in the early hours while in charge of a bicycle i suppose...

Little wonder we're the laughing stock of Europe..:o

Raam

ford2600 wrote: »

No idea how his injuries were cakculated at 20k, someone else may help.

Book of Quantum, maybe.

washman3

Captain Havoc wrote: »

There's a big what if to your argument. Why did the driver flee the scene? It's not illegal to be drunk in this country and the victim wasn't riding the bike at the time. It's a despicable act to hit a pedestrian and leave the scene of the accident, the condition of the victim is irrelevant. I would imagine if the driver had of remained at the scene, they may of been able to defend themselves but they chose to flee. The victim had nobody to refute his version of events.

there's a possibility that the driver did not see the cyclist, maybe poor eyesight or poor weather conditions. or even a possibility that he didnt even know he hit him. remember the cyclist was allegedly 'clipped', not mown down as another poster here claims.
read a case recently where an well known inter-county hurler clipped a very drunk pedestrian in the dead of night on a country road. he did not even know what he hit but did a U-turn to find the injured pedestrian. he loaded the injured pedestrian into his car and drove him 30 miles to a hospital.
Unbelieveably he was later charged with a hit and run and was very lucky to avoid a prison sentence.
it seems the onus is always on the car driver to prove his innocence. But this case really takes the biscuit.

ezra_pound

washman3 wrote: »

there's a possibility that the driver did not see the cyclist, maybe poor eyesight or poor weather conditions. or even a possibility that he didnt even know he hit him. remember the cyclist was allegedly 'clipped', not mown down as another poster here claims.
read a case recently where an well known inter-county hurler clipped a very drunk pedestrian in the dead of night on a country road. he did not even know what he hit but did a U-turn to find the injured pedestrian. he loaded the injured pedestrian into his car and drove him 30 miles to a hospital.
Unbelieveably he was later charged with a hit and run and was very lucky to avoid a prison sentence.
it seems the onus is always on the car driver to prove his innocence. But this case really takes the biscuit.

Poor eyesight? Are you for real?

who_me

ezra_pound wrote: »

Presumably the driver had insurance?

I fail to see thes significance of whether or not he wore reflective clothing.

If someone is lying/crouched/standing in the middle of the road with no reflective clothing, it could dramatically cut down the reaction time of the driver. That's true of any pedestrian, but most pedestrians aren't standing still in the middle of the road.

ford2600

I didn't see him is not a defence.

Dipped headlights illuminate 40m of road ahead.
If motorist had properly adjusted lights (as required by law) why didn't he see Plaintiff?

Whatever the conditions a motorist is required to drive at a speed which allows him to stop in sight distance available.

Whatever way you look at it, on badis of information available driver was at least partly to blame.

washman3 wrote: »

there's a possibility that the driver did not see the cyclist, maybe poor eyesight or poor weather conditions. or even a possibility that he didnt even know he hit him. remember the cyclist was allegedly 'clipped', not mown down as another poster here claims.
read a case recently where an well known inter-county hurler clipped a very drunk pedestrian in the dead of night on a country road. he did not even know what he hit but did a U-turn to find the injured pedestrian. he loaded the injured pedestrian into his car and drove him 30 miles to a hospital.
Unbelieveably he was later charged with a hit and run and was very lucky to avoid a prison sentence.
it seems the onus is always on the car driver to prove his innocence. But this case really takes the biscuit.

washman3

ezra_pound wrote: »

Poor eyesight? Are you for real?

Maybe not quite as good as yours.;)
not everyone is perfect you know.!!

ezra_pound

washman3 wrote: »

Maybe not quite as good as yours.;)
not everyone is perfect you know.!!

They shouldn'tbe driving if they are drunk, suffer from epilepsy or are not wearing glasses.

ezra_pound

who_me wrote: »

If someone is lying/crouched/standing in the middle of the road with no reflective clothing, it could dramatically cut down the reaction time of the driver. That's true of any pedestrian, but most pedestrians aren't standing still in the middle of the road.

Read ford2600s post about four posts back. There's no point in me rehashing what he said. If you can't see someone that is lying on tge road then you'regoing too fast.

washman3

ezra_pound wrote: »

They shouldn'tbe driving if they are drunk, suffer from epilepsy or are not wearing glasses.

They should be cycling so..???

ezra_pound

washman3 wrote: »

They should be cycling so..???

People with epilepsy are not legally prohibited from cycling. Look my point is that you're wring to use bad eye sight as defence. End of.

el tel

I have a friend who was unlucky enough to hit a drunkard at night as he drove his car. It was dark and the drunk stumbled out from the pavement into the his path, his head impacting the A-pillar. The bloke is seriously disabled. My friend was considered 100% blameless. Going by the ruling in case subject to this thread, had my friend not stopped and without any other evidence that he was involved, the drunk would have been in line for a fortune. Quite literally Car-azy

Dermot Illogical

el tel wrote: »

Going by the ruling in case subject to this thread, had my friend not stopped and without any other evidence that he was involved, the drunk would have been in line for a fortune.

That's what happens when people don't take responsibility for their actions. The cost goes elsewhere.
In this latest case the motorist, assuming he or she actually existed, could have saved the taxpayer by stopping. If the motorist was found to have been in the wrong then their insurance company would take the hit, and then spend 5 years clawing it back.

Lusk Doyle

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

That's what happens when people don't take responsibility for their actions. The cost goes elsewhere.
In this latest case the motorist, assuming he or she actually existed, could have saved the taxpayer by stopping. If the motorist was found to have been in the wrong then their insurance company would take the hit, and then spend 5 years clawing it back.

Sure it's going to go straight back into the local economy anyway. New bike and more beer. Helps the return to the bond markets.

What's the problem?!?