What is the procedure with a claim against an "uninsured" Cyclist?

Locanfetzava

I understand that cyclist are not required to carry 3rd party insurance in this country.

I know a pedestrian that was involved in a collision with a cyclist who was in the wrong. (Apparently the cyclist was on an anesthetic after receiving medical treatment shortly before the incident which could have been a contributory factor to the accident).

Personal injury was involved which would put him/her out of work for a period. I understand that there is a system for uninsured motorists. In this case the cyclist is on long term disability benefit and Is obviously not covered by any insurance policy.

How can the injured party receive compensation? I believe that there is a system for uninsured motorists MIBI dose the same apply to cyclists?.

Corkbah

PIAB - Personal Injuries Assessment Board

Locanfetzava

Corkbah wrote: »

PIAB - Personal Injuries Assessment Board

I thought that PIAB were only a government assessment agency that come up with settlement figures for various levels of injury.

Do they pay out settlements themselves or do they chase after the parties involved ?

Pro Hoc Vice

Corkbah wrote: »

PIAB - Personal Injuries Assessment Board

They don't pay the award. You bring up an interesting question OP. Anotherquestion is there any other person who contributed to the accident, did a third party in anyway do anything negligent a third party who has insurance, btw on the facts set out in your OP I can think of one person with insurance who may! be liable.

Tell your friend to speak to a good personal injuries solicitor they will usually not charge for a consultation.

Locanfetzava

infosys wrote: »

They don't pay the award. You bring up an interesting question OP. Anotherquestion is there any other person who contributed to the accident, did a third party in anyway do anything negligent a third party who has insurance, btw on the facts set out in your OP I can think of one person with insurance who may! be liable.

Tell your friend to speak to a good personal injuries solicitor they will usually not charge for a consultation.

No insurance what so ever and no one else was involved.

Yes the person was handed a dental advisory sheet after the extraction of a tooth. There is no mention about the dangers of driving a car or riding a bicycle. Apparently accident happened approximately 15 minutes after leaving the Dentist surgery. This was noted to the Gardai, time stamped receipts etc are retained.

I don't think the person involved even had house cover which would sometimes covers third party PI cases.

No Pants

Why is uninsured in quote marks? Was the cyclist insured or not?

Locanfetzava

No Pants wrote: »

Why is uninsured in quote marks? Was the cyclist insured or not?

Obviously not.

Very few if any are.

No Pants

Locanfetzava wrote: »

Obviously not.

Very few if any are.

So why the quote marks?

I think you'll find that quite a few are, depending on whether they're training or not.

Pro Hoc Vice

Locanfetzava wrote: »

No insurance what so ever and no one else was involved.

Yes the person was handed a dental advisory sheet after the extraction of a tooth. There is no mention about the dangers of driving a car or riding a bicycle. Apparently accident happened approximately 15 minutes after leaving the Dentist surgery. This was noted to the Gardai, time stamped receipts etc are retained.

I don't think the person involved even had house cover which would sometimes covers third party PI cases.

Dentist carry insurance. That's what I would look at a solicitor can advise.

Locanfetzava

No Pants wrote: »

So why the quote marks?

I think you'll find that quite a few are, depending on whether they're training or not.

We are not talking about professional sports her. In this case its someone that would use a €70 second hand mountain bike to shop and get from A to B.

infosys wrote: »

Dentist carry insurance. That's what I would look at a solicitor can advise.

Cheers.

No Pants

Can't see any action being successful in real terms. Even if the injured party wins, if the cyclist is on disability, any money will probably come in drive and drabs.

Cody Pomeray

I think going down the dentist route sounds problematic. I am not any authority on medical negligence but trying to get over two serious obstacles: failure to warn, and causation, don't sound appealing.

On sufficient warning: is it not common knowledge that a person shouldn't take to the highway after coming out of the dentist's clinic where they have been subject to an anesthetic? i.e. was it the plaintiff's medical ignorance which induced him or her to take to the public road in this way?

On a completely non legal issue... do I understand this correctly by saying that an individual on a disability payment was capable of pedalling a bike into another individual with such force as to cause him to have to take time off work? I know we don't know the facts, but that itself sounds a bit off.

Pat Mustard

The concept that comes to my mind is that a person can be as negligent as they like as long as they cause no damage through that negligence.

Even if we take a leap and assume that the dentist had been negligent in not warning him, how would the person who was injured by the cyclist show that the dentist's negligence caused the injury?

And of course, there is our old friend, novus actus interveniens.

Locanfetzava

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

On a completely non legal issue... do I understand this correctly by saying that an individual on a disability payment was capable of pedalling a bike into another individual with such force as to cause him to have to take time off work? I know we don't know the facts, but that itself sounds a bit off.

There are a multitude of reasons why someone can be on disability, anything from slight a learning disorder, to having the HIV virus and as far as impact goes all it takes is for someone to be knocked to the ground to sustain an injury and that can be at low speed in which I believe this incident was.

Cody Pomeray

Locanfetzava wrote: »

There are a multitude of reasons why someone can be on disability, anything from slight a learning disorder, to having the HIV virus and as far as impact goes all it takes is for someone to be knocked to the ground to sustain an injury and that can be at low speed in which I believe this incident was.

I appreciate the first part of your point. It's just a human interest question, a debate for another forum perhaps.

It might have some relevance to the legal questions surrounding any hypothetical case against the cyclist, e.g. if the cyclist's speed is disputed, and the cylist turns out to be a one legged asthmatic on a drip.

valleyoftheunos

I think pursuing a dentist in a case like this would be difficult. Aside from the fact that its questionable whether the dentist was negligent at all, establishing causation will be difficult to show. I my self cycled home yesterday from the Dentist after a filing with no adverse effects what so ever.

As for seeking to claim against the Cyclist, PIAB is the first step but unless he has funds or assets of some description the likelihood of actually receiving any compensation would be minimal.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

drkpower

The Mustard wrote: »

The concept that comes to my mind is that a person can be as negligent as they like as long as they cause no damage through that negligence.

Even if we take a leap and assume that the dentist had been negligent in not warning him, how would the person who was injured by the cyclist show that the negligence caused the injury?].

I wouldn't have thought that would necessarily pose too much of a problem. If the cyclist is ordinarily a reasonably competent cyclist, in the absence of any oher relevant factor, the probable cause of his accident is his being under the influence of an anaesthetic. Of course the facts are always king but I wouldn't see a problem showing causation.

Regarding liability, a dentist who gave no warning whatsoever would be at significant risk. There is a reason that hospitals are usually at pains to inform patients not to drive after day case surgery to the point of some hospital s effectively insisting that patients are picked up by a family member. There certainly is a duty to warn. Any arguement over contributory negligence (the patient should have known himself) is unlikely to be hugely convincing in circumstances where the dentist who certainly did know of the risk chose not to advise the patient of that risk and in circumstances where the effect s of different types of anaesthetic significantly vary.

The potentially tricky issue in this hypothetical is whether the dentist owes a duty to the community at large rather than just to the patient butting as been firmly established that if the harm to. Third party is reasonably foreseeable then recovery can occur in these circumstances.

In any case, it's all a little academic. I would be surprised there would be a medical or dental practitioner out there who not at this stage provide to his patients in advance if any anaesthetic at least an A4 page which explains the possible affects of anaesthesia

valleyoftheunos

drkpower wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought that would necessarily pose too much of a problem. If the cyclist is ordinarily a reasonably competent cyclist, in the absence of any oher relevant factor, the probable cause of his accident is his being under the influence of an anaesthetic. Of course the facts are always king but I wouldn't see a problem showing causation.

Regarding liability, a dentist who gave no warning whatsoever would be at significant risk. There is a reason that hospitals are usually at pains to inform patients not to drive after day case surgery to the point of some hospital s effectively insisting that patients are picked up by a family member. There certainly is a duty to warn. Any arguement over contributory negligence (the patient should have known himself) is unlikely to be hugely convincing in circumstances where the dentist who certainly did know of the risk chose not to advise the patient of that risk and in circumstances where the effect s of different types of anaesthetic significantly vary.

The potentially tricky issue in this hypothetical is whether the dentist owes a duty to the community at large rather than just to the patient butting as been firmly established that if the harm to. Third party is reasonably foreseeable then recovery can occur in these circumstances.

In any case, it's all a little academic. I would be surprised there would be a medical or dental practitioner out there who not at this stage provide to his patients in advance if any anaesthetic at least an A4 page which explains the possible affects of anaesthesia

As earlier pointed out if the patient was not in a fit condition to cycle his bike and yet chose to do so anyway, there is a good chance that would amount to a novus actus interveniens, thus breaking the chain of causation. I'm not saying that it would not be possible to be successful in such a hypothetical case, I just don't think it would be easy ad would depend greatly on the facts.

Pat Mustard

drkpower wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought that would necessarily pose too much of a problem. If the cyclist is ordinarily a reasonably competent cyclist, in the absence of any oher relevant factor, the probable cause of his accident is his being under the influence of an anaesthetic. Of course the facts are always king but I wouldn't see a problem showing causation.

I think that you are overly optimistic about a case which has a difficulty in relation to proof of causation.

drkpower

The Mustard wrote: »

I think that you are overly optimistic about a case which has a difficulty in relation to proof of causation.

I don't really see the difficulty myself.

drkpower

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

As earlier pointed out if the patient was not in a fit condition to cycle his bike and yet chose to do so anyway, there is a good chance that would amount to a novus actus interveniens, thus breaking the chain of causation. I'm not saying that it would not be possible to be successful in such a hypothetical case, I just don't think it would be easy ad would depend greatly on the facts.

If his judgement was affected by the affect of the anaesthetic was such as to cause someone to crash their bike, it would be hard to envisage a court criticising that same person's judgment in choosing to use his bike in the first place.

If there was a proven failure on the part of the dentist, a court will tend - where it is close to a 50:50 call on causation - to come down against that party who has so failed.

No Pants

Fred Swanson wrote: »

All the more reason to require cyclists to have 3rd party insurance.

Rubbish. Stop reading The Irish Times and the Indo for a couple of weeks and common sense will return.

Del2005

drkpower wrote: »

In any case, it's all a little academic. I would be surprised there would be a medical or dental practitioner out there who not at this stage provide to his patients in advance if any anaesthetic at least an A4 page which explains the possible affects of anaesthesia

Has anyone ever successfully sued a publican after a patron caused a crash in this county? If not I'd find it hard to believe that a case against the dentist would be successful as publicans never hand out pieces of paper saying your not safe to drive or cycle after partaking of their sedative.

Del2005

No Pants wrote: »

Rubbish. Stop reading The Irish Times and the Indo for a couple of weeks and common sense will return.

Why is it rubbish to make cyclists have insurance. Surely this thread proves why it required and other countries already have it.

drkpower

Del2005 wrote: »

Has anyone ever successfully sued a publican after a patron caused a crash in this county? If not I'd find it hard to believe that a case against the dentist would be successful as publicans never hand out pieces of paper saying your not safe to drive or cycle after partaking of their sedative.

The duty to warn on a medical or dental practitioner is vastly different to any such duty on the part of the publican (if indeed any such duty falls on the latter).

Pro Hoc Vice

Del2005 wrote: »

Has anyone ever successfully sued a publican after a patron caused a crash in this county? If not I'd find it hard to believe that a case against the dentist would be successful as publicans never hand out pieces of paper saying your not safe to drive or cycle after partaking of their sedative.

There was a case but was lost http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0304/298350-connollyj/

The reasons given by the court involved the fact that drink driving was illegal.

"He said the Court was being requested to place a burden on publicans without the publican being provided with the legal safeguards to deal with such an obligation.
He said the fact the Oireachtas has set strict limits in relation to the blood alcohol level permitted in a driver cannot impose a liability on a publican to stop serving a customer an amount of drink that would place them over that limit.
Judge Feeney said it was not for the publican to supervise or enforce the provision of the Road Traffic Acts."

In law it's not the same as a professional administering a drug and not advising of risks.

listermint

Del2005 wrote: »

Why is it rubbish to make cyclists have insurance. Surely this thread proves why it required and other countries already have it.

Should Joggers have insurance ? Walkers? Baby Strollers ? Skateboards ? Roller Blades ? where does its stop ?

Citycap

If a person is injured through the negligence of another then there is a case to be heard. If proven the court can award compensation.

Pro Hoc Vice

listermint wrote: »

Should Joggers have insurance ? Walkers? Baby Strollers ? Skateboards ? Roller Blades ? where does its stop ?

All of those people while not insured, can be sued if their negligence causes injury and loss to another.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

Why is it rubbish to make cyclists have insurance. Surely this thread proves why it required and other countries already have it.

One thread on a public forum about one cyclist, whose fitness to ride a bicycle at all is in question. We have no facts at all about the circumstances of the crash or the injuries caused. All we have is that one person who claims disability benefit and had recently visited a dentist, allegedly managed to cause another person to fall over. This second person may need some time off work. By all means, let's recall the Dáil, the Seanad and Walker Texas Ranger and sort this out once and for all. :rolleyes:

Del2005

listermint wrote: »

Should Joggers have insurance ? Walkers? Baby Strollers ? Skateboards ? Roller Blades ? where does its stop ?

If people cause damage to others or their property the injured party is entitled to be compensated and as has been pointed out if they are found negligent then they can be sued. But what's the point in suing if there's no money or an easy way to get the award off the person.

No Pants wrote: »

One thread on a public forum about one cyclist, whose fitness to ride a bicycle at all is in question. We have no facts at all about the circumstances of the crash or the injuries caused. All we have is that one person who claims disability benefit and had recently visited a dentist, allegedly managed to cause another person to fall over. This second person may need some time off work. By all means, let's recall the Dáil, the Seanad and Walker Texas Ranger and sort this out once and for all. :rolleyes:

I know several people who've been hit by pedestrians and cyclists who've had to cover the cost of the damage themselves. Why shouldn't they be made responsible for the damage they cause with an easy way to get compensated for the damage they cause, which on a modern car or a motorbike can quickly add up.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

I know several people who've been hit by pedestrians and cyclists who've had to cover the cost of the damage themselves. Why shouldn't they be made responsible for the damage they cause with an easy way to get compensated for the damage they cause, which on a modern car or a motorbike can quickly add up.

If you're talking about damage being caused by pedestrians, then why not push for pedestrian insurance?

dermabrasion

Before hanging the dentist (which if find revolting), you should consider if there is a causative relationship between the administering the drug, and the effect on the cyclist. Local anaesthetics used in appropriate doses do not (usually) cause adverse effects on cognitive skills or motor skills accept on the nerve they are applied. General anaesthetics are different. Sedative medicines are different again.
I would assume this is a local nerve block given by a dentist for a procedure. This is the common experience we all have had. If a local anaesthetic has been used to numb a cranial nerve, there is probably no plausible relationship between the nerve block and the cyclists actions. Overdose of local anaesthetic to cause cognitive side effects in not plausible because of the volume of drug required and other toxic effects on organs.

kennM

Is it just me or am I missing a post....

There is no description of the nature of the accident. From the initial wording it almost reads like liability/cause is put on the cyclist because they had anesthetic at the dentist.

There is a lot of speculation regarding what the dentist said/did not say etc.

What are the nature of the injuries sustained? Are the injuries going to be long lasting/permanent? If they are "comparatively" minor then it could be a very long uphilll battle. Even if an award is ordered by court does the cyclist have the means to pay it? Unlikely I assume. Sounds like a long risky road....

Locanfetzava

OP back again, cyclist is covered under his Fathers household insurance policy for personal liability outside the house so it looks like the case is closed. Cheers.