Cyclist settles claim with county council out of court

jon1981

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cyclist-suing-crashing-potholes-settles-case-court/


On the fence about this one. Had it went to court would the amount be reduced for contributory negligence? no lights, no helmet, carrying a hurley on the handlebars... hits a pot hole.

beauf

Correction hit a recessed manhole.

ThisRegard

Shaky grounds for a defence by the county council imo

The council had denied the claim and said Mr King was going too fast, could not see where he was cycling and was not wearing a helmet.

How did they know how fast he was going? And how did not wearing a helmet cause him to crash?

Roadhawk

beauf wrote: »

Correction hit a recessed manhole.

...allegedly hit a recessed manhole.

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

...allegedly hit a recessed manhole.

What point are you trying to make?

Roadhawk

ThisRegard wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?

I can only explain my post by repeating my post...its self explanatory

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

I can only explain my post by repeating my post...its self explanatory

Are you trying to insinuate that he didn't hit the manhole?

The council seem to have accepted that he did and had workers out to repair the road the next day.

In relation to the case, I wonder if the council settled so as to avoid the bad press associated with a case where a 16 year old suffered a brain injury.

The council's defense was to blame the child (which I tend to agree with) and that may not have gone down well.

ford2600

ThisRegard wrote: »

Shaky grounds for a defence by the county council imo


How did they know how fast he was going? And how did not wearing a helmet cause him to crash?

He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?

How fast is ok at night with no lights?

The Garda pretty nailed it to a location, "potholes" to side of manhole.

seamus

ford2600 wrote: »

He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?

It is unreasonable. It assumes a requirement or a duty of care on behalf of cyclists to wear a helmet.

If it had been a pedestrian or a bus passenger who had suffered head injuries, the defence wouldn't try to use "they weren't wearing a helmet". So why for a bicycle?

ford2600

seamus wrote: »

It is unreasonable. It assumes a requirement or a duty of care on behalf of cyclists to wear a helmet.

If it had been a pedestrian or a bus passenger who had suffered head injuries, the defence wouldn't try to use "they weren't wearing a helmet". So why for a bicycle?

Because it'll work in a court setting

ThisRegard

ford2600 wrote: »

He was suing for injuries relating to a head trauma, referencing a helmet (whether it would have done him any good or not) isn't unreasonable?

How fast is ok at night with no lights?

The Garda pretty nailed it to a location, "potholes" to side of manhole.

If he had spinal injuries, would they claim he should have been wearing a backguard like motorcyclists and MTB'ers?

And again, how can they claim he was going too fast?

jon1981

beauf wrote: »

Correction hit a recessed manhole.

As per article

A man using for damages after he claimed he suffered a brain injury after crashing due to a pothole in a Co Galway road has settled his action on undisclosed terms.

ford2600

ThisRegard wrote: »

If he had spinal injuries, would they claim he should have been wearing a backguard like motorcyclists and MTB'ers?

And again, how can they claim he was going too fast?

He had no lights, which would have drastically restricted his view of defect? Agreed?

What speed is slow enough to allow him to see it with no light? He was either going above that speed or wasn't watching carefully enough.

When drafting a defence you have to cover all your bases. I'd bet my bottom dollar they mentioned not watching careful bit to.

This was in a court setting; putting not wearing helmet into defence is a good idea from their point of view. There job is to payout as little no money as possible. The nuances of helmet wearing pros/cons etc as discussed to death here don't matter a ****e when your looking to fight a case as best you can.

On liability they were probably screwed given "pothole" next to manhole and Garda verifying it. Their only case was to make contributory negligence as big as possible.

You mightn't like it, but it's the Irish court system not American tv; mentioned helmet, along with no light, hurley or bars is an attempt tot paint a picture which might sway a judge. Judge is in all probability likely to not be a regular on this sub forum and like most of the population think helmet are a life saver.

Roadhawk

amcalester wrote: »

Are you trying to insinuate that he didn't hit the manhole?

The council seem to have accepted that he did and had workers out to repair the road the next day.

In relation to the case, I wonder if the council settled so as to avoid the bad press associated with a case where a 16 year old suffered a brain injury.

The council's defense was to blame the child (which I tend to agree with) and that may not have gone down well.

Why the council decided to settle outside of court is more than likely because of the reasons you mention along with the fact that it would probably cost them less to settle outside of court.

Going by the article the cyclist did say he hit something...that could have been anything(a rock, a branch, a hurl)...If he had a light would he have seen it...maybe? maybe not? If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No

Tar.Aldarion

He's not legally required to use the cycle lane right? In fact it's often more dangerous to use the cycle lane

What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

amcalester

Roadhawk wrote: »

Going by the article the cyclist did say he hit something...that could have been anything(a rock, a branch, a hurl)...If he had a light would he have seen it...maybe? maybe not? If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No

Shots fired.

RayCun

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

There's a mega thread around here somewhere.

There's no legal obligation to wear a helmet, but certainly sounds like a situation where one would have been very useful.

jon1981

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

A poorly fitted helmet is probably as a effective as no helmet. However personally, i've a properly fitted helmet...i believe the argument that a helmet saves your life is weaker for high impact speeds.

However for falls from a seated height at around 20-25kph...common sense tells me a helmet fitted correctly can only do more good than bad

jon1981

Roadhawk wrote: »

If had of used the cycle lane (as legally required) would he have hit it? No

Oh no you didn't!!!!!

1. Not a legal requirement
2. Don't have me post pictures of the vast amount of cycle lanes out there today with holes/manholes...etc.!!

such as

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cianginty/4912837697/in/pool-dublincyclelanes/

RayCun

And obviously the council is going to mention it, just like they'd mention that a motorist had had a drink, even if they were under the limit, or a pedestrian was wearing heels and on the phone when they fell, even though both are legal

Roadhawk

jon1981 wrote: »

Oh no you didn't!!!!!

1. Not a legal requirement
2. Don't have me post pictures of the vast amount of cycle lanes out there today with holes/manholes...etc.!!

1.I think you will find that this incident took place in March of 2012...Leo V only revoked the mandatory cycle lane law in September 2012...so yes, it was a legal requirement to use the lane at the time.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

2. You can post as many pictures you like but how many of them are directly relative to this incident? I think you will find none!

Beasty

At the time (March 2012) I think it was a legal requirement to use cycle lanes where provided in accordance with certain legalities. Whether this was one which was legally required to be used is certainly not clear from that article

CramCycle

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument).

MOD VOICE: There is a mega thread for this, helmet talk should be kept there, outside of relevance to the case, general discussion of helmets should stay in the megathread.

Tombo2001

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

He's not legally required to use the cycle lane right? In fact it's often more dangerous to use the cycle lane

What are the reasons people don't think helmets are a life saver (not that I don't want to derail things with an argument). I had read they may cause more damage in certain falls and people cycle with less care with them, anything else, is that the general idea?

Its not a question of 'what he should or shouldn't have been doing' in your opinion. its a question of what he's legally obliged to do.

He is not legally obliged to wear a helmet. He is legally entitled to carry a hurley.

The lights are different matter.

However it may still be negligence on the part of the council, even if he had no lights.

Plenty of people get head injuries in car crashes, and none of those are wearing helmets.

jon1981

Roadhawk wrote: »

1.I think you will find that this incident took place in March of 2012...Leo V only revoked the mandatory cycle lane law in September 2012...so yes, it was a legal requirement to use the lane at the time.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

2. You can post as many pictures you like but how many of them are directly relative to this incident? I think you will find none!

Take your point, but just like your argument on relevance, as to whether that law was relevant in this case, you'd find it probably wasn't. If the legislation was strong enough I would suspect the council would have pursued this to court.

Perhaps the cycle lane was in shambles, the council didn't appear to include this in their argument... where they concerned about drawing attention to it?

ThisRegard

ford2600 wrote: »

He had no lights, which would have drastically restricted his view of defect? Agreed?

What speed is slow enough to allow him to see it with no light? He was either going above that speed or wasn't watching carefully enough.

I know someone who had a fall in similar accidents to this lad, but it was in broad daylight, was wearing a helmet, and wasn't going at any substantial speed. He meets all your criteria for avoiding such an accident, and yet he too ended up in hospital.

Roadhawk

Going by google maps "road view" which appears to have been last updated last in 2009, the road and cycle lanes are in pretty bad condition:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3031578,-8.989074,3a,75y,334.19h,58.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_29AHP8qwLSUI0DOqfpDEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I would still argue that if he had used the cycle infrastructure provided it would not have happened.

jon1981

Roadhawk wrote: »

Going by google maps "road view" which appears to have been last updated last in 2009, the road and cycle lanes are in pretty bad condition:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3031578,-8.989074,3a,75y,334.19h,58.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_29AHP8qwLSUI0DOqfpDEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I would still argue that if he had used the cycle infrastructure provided it would not have happened.

Scanned along the cycle path (clearly very bored on my lunch break) , there are quite a few recessed manhole covers, i don't think you can say it would not have happened... it probably would have happened , if not already, to someone eventually.

Kaisr Sose

Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable outcome in that it would make it legally binding on them to either repair all the damaged roads or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

jon1981

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on ten to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

Yes I believe so.

07Lapierre

I am outraged! These manhole covers clearly think they own the road! Why aren't they painted a bright hi viz colour?

The obvious answer is a license and tax of some sort. That'll stop this "recessed" business once and for all!

Roadhawk

07Lapierre wrote: »

I am outraged! These manhole covers clearly think they own the road! Why aren't they painted a bright hi viz colour?

The obvious answer is a license and tax of some sort. That'll stop this "recessed" business once and for all!

Haha good one, you sound like a true motorist.

(in my best cyclist voice)
It is the responsibility of the road user to be going slow enough to see these manholes and be aware of their surroundings at all times. If they cant see these manholes they dont deserve to be on the road!

ford2600

ThisRegard wrote: »

I know someone who had a fall in similar accidents to this lad, but it was in broad daylight, was wearing a helmet, and wasn't going at any substantial speed. He meets all your criteria for avoiding such an accident, and yet he too ended up in hospital.

That's terrible but what has it do with how the Defendant here drafted his/her defence?

Civil courts case are about winning arguments/optics/lots of bullsh1t.

Most people, including most judges in all likelihood, think helmets are a good idea. A barrister not hamming that up along with hurley light etc is not doing his job. His job is not the pursuit of justice but saving his client money.

Walk into a court for a day, it'll knock that Matlock/ A few Good men ideas out of your head.

The Plaintiff would have a hard job in all probability have a difficulty persuading his own lawyers than a helmet mightn't have done much good.

The judge doesn't live, like most people, in the bubble of this subforum.

CramCycle

And to think, looking at google maps, that is one of the best cycle paths around, compared to the N11 it looks damn near perfection. I have had the N11 take me out of it a few times, hidden dips, manhole covers on bends, that weird red sh1t that removes all grip from the road.

Beasty

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on ten to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

I am not sure it is. Their insurers will be to some extent involved in the decisions whether to defend the case. However a very large number get settled out of court as much to save legal expenses.

It's no different from a pedestrian who falls in similar circumstances, who then makes a claim. Some such claims have gone to court, but that never forces any authority to change it's approach to repairs. They basically know they will face claims and can estimate the approximate level and compare it to the costs of repairs. It essentially becomes a budgeting exercise, particularly when there are many different things competing for funding.

smacl

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on them to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

Seems reasonable. Personally while I've no issue with the state supporting someone who needs care following an accident like this, I'd hate to see Ireland moving any way further towards a compo culture. We have a huge network of rural roads, many of which contain potholes that would send you flying were you to hit them, but don't have the funds to keep all of them pothole free all of the time, particularly in agricultural areas with heavy machinery. I'd rather see money from the public purse spent on maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure than pi$$ed away in court on legal fees and awards.

Kaisr Sose

Yes we have roads to rival the infamous cobbled Forest of Arenberg

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

Haha good one, you sound like a true motorist.

(in my best cyclist voice)
It is the responsibility of the road user to be going slow enough to see these manholes and be aware of their surroundings at all times. If they cant see these manholes they dont deserve to be on the road!

You see plenty of threads in the motors forum from drivers who had damaged their cars from poor roads. Would the same apply to them?

ThisRegard

ford2600 wrote: »

Most people, including most judges in all likelihood, think helmets are a good idea. A barrister not hamming that up along with hurley light etc is not doing his job. His job is not the pursuit of justice but saving his client money.

Walk into a court for a day, it'll knock that Matlock/ A few Good men ideas out of your head.

I understand the first point you're trying to make, it's just that you can't handle the truth, jackass! (it's a Matlock quote before I get carded!)

What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.

seamus

RayCun wrote: »

And obviously the council is going to mention it, just like they'd mention that a motorist had had a drink, even if they were under the limit, or a pedestrian was wearing heels and on the phone when they fell, even though both are legal

Ah yes, but generally these are all used as reasons as to why the incident occurred in the first place. Like with the hurley, you can argue that he didn't have proper control of the bike, but not wearing a helmet doesn't make you more likely to crash.

This is why it's a silly argument. And in many ways bringing up the "not wearing a helmet" argument could be seen as an admission that the council is at fault for the incident, they're just disputing the level of their liability.

smacl

ThisRegard wrote: »

What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.

True, but by his own admission he was cycling home in the dark without a light when he hit something. Cycling in the dark without a light is surely negligent, and while he probably hit a pothole, it is far from conclusive. Be interesting to know what level of street lighting was present, one would assume some but not enough to safely negotiate a poorly surfaced road.

ford2600

ThisRegard wrote: »

I understand the first point you're trying to make, it's just that you can't handle the truth, jackass! (it's a Matlock quote before I get carded!)

What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.

The onus of proof is on the Plaintiff that his speed was appropriate to riding his bike in the dark with no light. Again what speed do you say that is?

Along with not keeping a proper lookout they had to include excessive speed; they can't make up new particulars when case is at hearing that they haven't already pleaded.

The helmet helps to muddy the waters and helps paint a picture of a youth with no regard for his own safety; cycling with no light does that for me.

As an aside the opening line of every defence I've seen starts with "It's denied the accident happened as alleged or at all". In lots of cases where it's clearly bo11ox and effectively agreed bo11ox between the parties.

Lawyers are advocates for their client. There was no downside to throwing the helmet comment in only upside or neutral.

The key issue here was the light, and maybe hurley, the rest is optics. I'd bet it would influence most judges not to mention the one rabidly anti cycling one I've met

RayCun

The helmet obviously wouldn't have prevented the accident, but they would argue, or imply, that his injuries would have been less severe if he'd worn one. So maybe he is partially responsible for the extent of the damage therefore due less compensation.

And, without opening the can of worms, that's not a bad argument when it comes to a brain injury.

smacl

ford2600 wrote: »

The key issue here was the light, and maybe hurley, the rest is optics. I'd bet it would influence most judges not to mention the one rabidly anti cycling one I've met

Never been involved in a civil case, but I was recently working as an expert witness on a criminal case. The one thing that struck me was that the presentation of evidence seemed every bit as important as the evidence itself, and as a result the outcome was more arbitrary than I would've expected. I wouldn't be surprised that in the case the council took the safer known option rather than an unknown one which was possibly much better for them.

Roadhawk

smacl wrote: »

True, but by his own admission he was cycling home in the dark without a light when he hit something. Cycling in the dark without a light is surely negligent, and while he probably hit a pothole, it is far from conclusive. Be interesting to know what level of street lighting was present, one would assume some but not enough to safely negotiate a poorly surfaced road.

Truth be known, his hurl could have fallen in front of his wheel causing him to fall off his bike.

Billy Reid

Why did it take so long to settle?

smacl

Billy Reid wrote: »

Why did it take so long to settle?

No experience of the Irish legal system then?

Johnny Jukebox

Roadhawk wrote: »

Truth be known, his hurl could have fallen in front of his wheel causing him to fall off his bike.

This. If I was the opposing counsel I'd be arguing long and hard to raise the possibility of the hurley going into the spokes of the front wheel....

Likewise if I was the plaintiff, there'd be no mention of any hurley....