Shared Liability

sullivlo

What does “shared liability” mean in the context of a RTA?

Context: I was in a collision as a cyclist. We both had a green light but I was going straight and he was turning right (across my path).

The Garda report says “shared liability”. Does this make me liable for the other party costs?

Mr. Incognito

He means contributory negligence.

Thats a matter for the trial judge to apply a discount.

The guards tend to opine on the law. They are rarely correct.

A new one I had was a clear case of fraud was described by the guards as a consentual civil dispute.

Costs follow the event. Get a solicitor.

Victor

There was a case where an ambulance went through a red light and hit a car that had a green light. Ambulance was held to be 20% responsible (proceeded through junction dangerously, with traffic still moving) and car driver 80% responsible (didn't see big yellow ambulance with flashy blue lights).

Of course, typical car costs €20,000. Typical ambulance costs €250,000. Car driver's insurance had to pay ambulance owner €200,000. Ambulance's insurance had to pay car owner €4,000. Both sides would have had the balance paid by their own insurance.

In your case, the garda has made a decision, both parties might be prosecuted. You might need to consult a solicitor.

The garda's decision may or may not be accepted by the insurer(s), who can still proceed to court for a decision on liability and compensation.

sullivlo

The abstract says no prosecution will apply.

thebiglad

Shared liability is the Garda view and will have little bearing on any civil case - although the opinion should be strongly considered as it is independent assessment of facts.

If you were proceeding straight on green and cyclist turned across your path then they should be liable as they were making a manoeuvre. If the Garda believes you had plenty of time to have seen them but failed to take appropriate action then some liability could attach to you.

You will have Motor Insurance and so long as you are not in any breaches of your policy then you will have to pay nothing to the cyclist personally - your insurer will be liable for any amount which must be paid.

However it is highly unlikely that the cyclist has any insurance for liability and so any damage to your car or costs you incur in defending a claim they may bring against you are unlikely to be recovered by you or your motor insurer.

If you are contacted by the cyclist pass it to your motor insurer and provide them with a clear account of what happened.

It is too late now but this is why a dash cam is such a good investment - if you could prove the cyclist turned right when you had a green light and no time to react then they would even attempt to pursue a claim against you.

If you want to pursue the damage to your car against the cyclist you can do so but even if you are successful there is no assurance you will be paid by the cyclist for damage or the costs of pursuing it.

sullivlo

I was the cyclist.

amcalester

Op is the cyclist.

Seems harsh for the Gardai to find you partially at fault if the vehicle turned across your path.

sullivlo

I was the cyclist. He was going up a road, I was going down. Traffic was heavy. I had a green light. He also had a green light but I was going straight. He pulled across my path and I hit the side of his car, going through the window with my arm and denting the door with my helmet/side. I was brought to hospital and was off work for 5 weeks with a concussion.

amcalester

sullivlo wrote: »

I was the cyclist. He was going up a road, I was going down. Traffic was heavy. I had a green light. He also had a green light but I was going straight. He pulled across my path and I hit the side of his car, going through the window with my arm and denting the door with my helmet/side. I was brought to hospital and was off work for 5 weeks with a concussion.

Were you filtering to the left of slow moving traffic?

sullivlo

I was in the cycle lane.

0lddog

Sullivlo, given your description I'm puzzled as to what could have been going on that the Garda thinks it shared liability..........

sullivlo

I’ll wait and see what the insurance company come back with and then see, but I could be solicitor-ing up. I was trying to keep the costs down for everyone by not getting a solicitor.

I was also advised to claim personal injuries (I had a fairly significant concussion and I was off work for 5 weeks), but I don’t want to make money from this. I just want my expenses back!

amcalester

sullivlo wrote: »

I was in the cycle lane.

I’m not looking for ways to blame you, just curious about the circumstances and how the Gardai thinks that you were partially to blame.

If a car turns right across another oncoming car causing a collision I’d bet on the turning car being 100% to blame.

sullivlo

The drivers statement is also factually incorrect. He said I was listening to music with earphones, which I absolutely was not. I simply don’t listen to music on the bike if I am commuting. It’s so dangerous.

He said that he saw me about 70m away and miscalculated how fast I was going. I was actually even slowing down as I always do at junctions as I am always prepared for a car turning left as left turning lights go green.

4ensic15

Pay absolutely no attention to what guards say at the scene of an RTA. The motorist is a liar and the guard probably knew him. Go and see a solicitor and get a claim into PIAB. That's what the motorist has insurance for.

Marcusm

sullivlo wrote: »

I was the cyclist.

You were going straight ahead and the car collided with you as it crossed your path? It’s hard to see how this can be anything other than the fault of the car owner. As you were continuing on your way you had control of the road and the car was obligated to give way to you. As a cyclist and therefore a more vulnerable road user, the car owner owed you a greater duty of care given the relative propensitiesto injury. Speak to a solicitor but that guard either is an idiot or you did something which is not disclosed here or apparent to you.

NUTLEY BOY

Just to be clear, Gardaí do not make determinations on civil liability.
Gardaí may have an opinion but that does not determine fault.
Assessment of liability is a function of a court.

On the face of it the motorist seems 100% liable.
It is the motorist who will have to stand up an argument of contributory negligence if he is going to plead it.

BTW the concept of contributory negligence is based on the proposition that a plaintiff has by their conduct shown a want or lack of care for their own safety.

sullivlo

Just spoke to solicitor who said that they’re not sure if I have a case. Contributory negligence. Going too quickly to stop safely.

Now I’m in a pickle!

amcalester

sullivlo wrote: »

Just spoke to solicitor who said that they’re not sure if I have a case. Contributory negligence. Going too quickly to stop safely.

Now I’m in a pickle!

That is frustrating, I’d ring around another few solicitors.

Contributory negligence would only reduce your claim but not necessarily by 100%.

GreeBo

Did he cut through a gap in stopped traffic or were you two the only people on the road?
Its not always possible to stop safely for unexpected events.

sullivlo

GreeBo wrote: »

Did he cut through a gap in stopped traffic or were you two the only people on the road?
Its not always possible to stop safely for unexpected events.

Gap in stopped traffic

GreeBo

sullivlo wrote: »

Gap in stopped traffic

so then I'm not sure how you were supposed to stop if someone cuts in from of you from essentially a blind position.
Was he stopped when you hit him or still moving?

If he was stopped then you are at least partially at fault...

Sono

If this goes to court and the Garda turns up and gives evidence I have no doubt that you will be held partially at fault for whatever reason I cannot make out.

What has the Garda said you did wrong in this case?

Sono

GreeBo wrote: »

so then I'm not sure how you were supposed to stop if someone cuts in from of you from essentially a blind position.
Was he stopped when you hit him or still moving?

If he was stopped then you are at least partially at fault...

Yeah this is true, if he is cutting across and is stationary he is there to be seen, it doesn’t give someone the free shot at cycling into the side of a a car. Not sure that is the case here though?

sullivlo

Sono wrote: »

Yeah this is true, if he is cutting across and is stationary he is there to be seen, it doesn’t give someone the free shot at cycling into the side of a a car. Not sure that is the case here though?

Not the case here. He wasn't stopped. He was proceeding across my path.

His statement said I was going fast and wearing headphones. I wasn't wearing headphones. I don't think I was going fast.

Sono

I have to say I find this strange because even Garda usually favour the cyclist as they are seen as vulnerable road users and this seems like the car is 100% in the wrong, everyone knows speed can’t be proven so not sure how this stands up.

jimmycrackcorm

I can see the guards pov as I nearly became the cyclist in the OPs position a number of years ago.

The point is that the driver might not have an opportunity to see the cyclist filter down the cycle lane when turning because of the obscuring traffic.

I read lucky in the same circumstances in that I hadn't arrived at the junction but I remember vividly thinking that 30 seconds later I might have been a goner despite being in the cycle lane and having a green light.

Sono

The fact that you hit the rear of the car suggests they took the turn first and had nearly completed it when you collided with the car.

If it had of been the front door of the car I would say they are 100% at fault.

I can now see how you are being partially at fault here OP.

Irishphotodesk

sullivlo wrote: »

Not the case here. He wasn't stopped. He was proceeding across my path.

His statement said I was going fast and wearing headphones. I wasn't wearing headphones. I don't think I was going fast.

You may not think you were going too fast but from the description of the impact you were traveling at a fast enough speed to impact his vehicle and damage yourself badly, which is how the Garda has come to his/her opinion, both parties being negligent in terms of road traffic guidelines, I think you do have a case but it could very easily be lost, it’s a case of your version of events versus the car drivers version of events, the fact there was an impact has to be accepted, as regards liability, the judge would listen to both sides and assuming you were of good character and similarly with the motorist I would be of the opinion that your speed would result in a reduced payout, (assuming the judge goes in your favour) - 5/6 weeks out of work, repairs/replace bike)
If he (the driver) is accepting that he seen you in his mirror I would say he was primarily at fault he could and should have taken the appropriate action to avoid any possible impact, he therefore misjudged the situation and thus his liability, a decent barrister will be able to pick holes in his statement.

As regards solicitors I would seek another out and see what he/she says, have a look at a few court reports to see if a solicitors name appears regularly, I can definitely recommend a barrister for this kind of action.

Just for clarity, I’m not legally trained, this isn’t legal advice, this is my opinion given the information given in this thread.

sullivlo

Sono wrote: »

The fact that you hit the rear of the car suggests they took the turn first and had nearly completed it when you collided with the car.

If it had of been the front door of the car I would say they are 100% at fault.

I can now see how you are being partially at fault here OP.

I hit the front door of the car.

sullivlo

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

You may not think you were going too fast but from the description of the impact you were traveling at a fast enough speed to impact his vehicle and damage yourself badly, which is how the Garda has come to his/her opinion, both parties being negligent in terms of road traffic guidelines, I think you do have a case but it could very easily be lost, it’s a case of your version of events versus the car drivers version of events, the fact there was an impact has to be accepted, as regards liability, the judge would listen to both sides and assuming you were of good character and similarly with the motorist I would be of the opinion that your speed would result in a reduced payout, (assuming the judge goes in your favour) - 5/6 weeks out of work, repairs/replace bike)
If he (the driver) is accepting that he seen you in his mirror I would say he was primarily at fault he could and should have taken the appropriate action to avoid any possible impact, he therefore misjudged the situation and thus his liability, a decent barrister will be able to pick holes in his statement.

As regards solicitors I would seek another out and see what he/she says, have a look at a few court reports to see if a solicitors name appears regularly, I can definitely recommend a barrister for this kind of action.

Just for clarity, I’m not legally trained, this isn’t legal advice, this is my opinion given the information given in this thread.

There was no mirror involved. He was turning right. He said he saw me in the distance but that he didn't realise how fast I was travelling.

I have my Garmin data from the day. I wasn't going fast. It was a journey I made daily and it is a junction that I was very familiar with in that there is frequently cars turning left across the cycle lane as the lights changed. (pedestrian light going red meaning left filter can turn on).

Irishphotodesk

If he observed you and admitted such in his statement then he miscalculated the situation, and in my opinion, liability 80-20 or 90-10.

Get a good solicitor and barrister, there is a risk you will not be successful and be liable for costs of action involved, ensure all previous injuries and claims(if any) are disclosed - many cases have failed because of this.

GreeBo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I can see the guards pov as I nearly became the cyclist in the OPs position a number of years ago.

The point is that the driver might not have an opportunity to see the cyclist filter down the cycle lane when turning because of the obscuring traffic.

I read lucky in the same circumstances in that I hadn't arrived at the junction but I remember vividly thinking that 30 seconds later I might have been a goner despite being in the cycle lane and having a green light.

Sorry, so your point is that because the driver didnt see the OP, the OP is at fault?

If it was two lanes of vehicular traffic and the driver hit a car rather than a bike, would liability change somehow?

GreeBo

Sono wrote: »

The fact that you hit the rear of the car suggests they took the turn first and had nearly completed it when you collided with the car.

If it had of been the front door of the car I would say they are 100% at fault.

I can now see how you are being partially at fault here OP.

Where the OP hit on the car is as much a function of the cars speed as it is the OPs speed, so I dont see how that can infer liability?

If the driver was going slower the op would have hit the bonnet....is it now "more" the drivers fault?

Large bottle small glass

OP would you mind putting up a google map/streetview link.

A motorist turning right across and a bike lane and a standard lane has to be sure both are clear to proceed with his manoeuvre. If he says he saw you and proceeded anyway he's goosed. If he says he didn't see you (when you were clearly there) he's goosed.

If he is familiar with location he should know there is a cycle lane there and the possibility of it being occupied by a bike.

I've met a lot of Garda over 20 years in relation to RTA's; and put little heed in what they opinion.

You say you don't want to claim for injuries, and that is very admirable. You get no credit from insurance company for that however.

You have an injury and have missed work. If you decided to be belligerent and submit PIAB application and reject offer and issue proceeding in time, insurance companies exposure will go from circa €2k (assuming €1k for bike and €1k for medics) to easily €30k.

That's your leverage to get what you are owed. The PIAB application will cost insurance company about €600 alone. Stand up for yourself

amcalester

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

OP would you mind putting up a google map/streetview link.

A motorist turning right across and a bike lane and a standard lane has to be sure both are clear to proceed with his manoeuvre. If he says he saw you and proceeded anyway he's goosed. If he says he didn't see you (when you were clearly there) he's goosed.

If he is familiar with location he should know there is a cycle lane there and the possibility of it being occupied by a bike.

I've met a lot of Garda over 20 years in relation to RTA's; and put little heed in what they opinion.

You say you don't want to claim for injuries, and that is very admirable. You get no credit from insurance company for that however.

You have an injury and have missed work. If you decided to be belligerent and submit PIAB application and reject offer and issue proceeding in time, insurance companies exposure will go from circa €2k (assuming €1k for bike and €1k for medics) to easily €30k.

That's your leverage to get what you are owed. The PIAB application will cost insurance company about €600 alone. Stand up for yourself

I have to agree, I was wondering if the Garda has picked up on the OP's meekness (and I don't mean that insultingly) and decided that he could make this go away by stating shared liability.

OP have you been on to his insurance company and asked for a claim form? At the end of the day it is they who will decide whether to pay out, and it's hard to see them not throwing money at you to go away.

SuperS54

sullivlo wrote: »

I wasn't going fast. It was a journey I made daily and it is a junction that I was very familiar with in that there is frequently cars turning left across the cycle lane as the lights changed.

Without wishing to start an argument here, you clearly were going too fast given that, based on your experience, you were aware that cars frequently turned across the cycle lane and yet were not able to stop in time when a car did turn across the cycle lane. As a cyclist and motorcyclist a car sized gap in a line of stopped traffic at a junction is an instant signal to slow way down as that gap is likely left to allow a vehicle to turn.

If the car driver admits he seen you approach and yet still continued with his maneuver across your path then he's a &^%$# and the fact that he didn't have a broken nose when the guards arrived perhaps made them think you were partly responsible.

sullivlo

SuperS54 wrote: »

Without wishing to start an argument here, you clearly were going too fast given that, based on your experience, you were aware that cars frequently turned across the cycle lane and yet were not able to stop in time when a car did turn across the cycle lane. As a cyclist and motorcyclist a car sized gap in a line of stopped traffic at a junction is an instant signal to slow way down as that gap is likely left to allow a vehicle to turn.

If the car driver admits he seen you approach and yet still continued with his maneuver across your path then he's a &^%$# and the fact that he didn't have a broken nose when the guards arrived perhaps made them think you were partly responsible.

I was prepared to stop if a car was turning left. I wasn't prepared for a car to arrive right across my path.

Why would he have a broken nose?

jimmycrackcorm

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, so your point is that because the driver didnt see the OP, the OP is at fault?

If it was two lanes of vehicular traffic and the driver hit a car rather than a bike, would liability change somehow?

That's not a comparable situation because it would be clear that there is a possibility of traffic coming down a lane that is empty.

But with a cycle lane the visibility isn't the same so thwre Skype be an equal expectation that both the cyclist and the car should cross with due care.

Even if the Op had the natural right of way, it can be compared for example to a case not so long ago where a driver was prosecuted for knocking down a kid based on the idea that he should have anticipated that the kid was going to cross over the road because relatives were in the other side

Like I say, having once come very close to the same ending as the op while cycling, I can see how the guard can conclude this

GreeBo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

That's not a comparable situation because it would be clear that there is a possibility of traffic coming down a lane that is empty.

But with a cycle lane the visibility isn't the same so thwre Skype be an equal expectation that both the cyclist and the car should cross with due care.

Even if the Op had the natural right of way, it can be compared for example to a case not so long ago where a driver was prosecuted for knocking down a kid based on the idea that he should have anticipated that the kid was going to cross over the road because relatives were in the other side

Like I say, having once come very close to the same ending as the op while cycling, I can see how the guard can conclude this

Sorry but i dont understand your point.
It should be clear that there is a possibility of bike traffic coming down the empty bike lane.
The cyclist wasn't crossing anything, they were continuing straight ahead... just like if there was another vehicular lane.

Spook_ie

Is it possible the Gard decided the brakes on the bicycle were inefficient either by wear or adjustment that they contributed to the collision?

Were there witnesses whom may have lead the Gard to formulate an opinion that the cyclist "could" have averted the collision by doing something differently.

Have to agree though that IMO it would normally be the person turning bearing the responsibility but there are lots of variables that might play on the outcome.

sullivlo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is it possible the Gard decided the brakes on the bicycle were inefficient either by wear or adjustment that they contributed to the collision?

Were there witnesses whom may have lead the Gard to formulate an opinion that the cyclist "could" have averted the collision by doing something differently.

Have to agree though that IMO it would normally be the person turning bearing the responsibility but there are lots of variables that might play on the outcome.

There was a witness who said that I was in the right. There's no mention of the Garda contacting her in his report so I don't know if anything was done. She did say that she had seen the whole thing.

The Garda never looked at my bike as he wasn't at the scene. It was assigned to him at a later stage.

Credit Checker Moose

Have they prosecuted anyone in connection with the incident or are they considering prosecuting?

I find it rather strange that they would give an opinion on liability as they are not supposed to do so.

sullivlo

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Have they prosecuted anyone in connection with the incident or are they considering prosecuting?

I find it rather strange that they would give an opinion on liability as they are not supposed to do so.

No prosecution. Just shared liability.

Irishphotodesk

If I was in your position I would get in touch with PIAB or a solicitor (or get a solicitor to handle PIAB application - not necessary but less stressful)

Credit Checker Moose

sullivlo wrote: »

No prosecution. Just shared liability.

The Gardaí are not allowed to make such decisions as to liability.

sullivlo

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

The Gardaí are not allowed to make such decisions as to liability.

Okay. I am just going on what is in the abstract.

sullivlo

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

If I was in your position I would get in touch with PIAB or a solicitor (or get a solicitor to handle PIAB application - not necessary but less stressful)

I was talking to a solicitor and they require lots of paperwork etc that I don't have and can't afford to get. Like medical reports etc.

Genuinely I just want my expenses covered. I don't want the personal injuries route. It's hassle, and aside from a scar I have no long standing injuries. I just want to be reimbursed for the a&e fee, my medical bills, and my bike fixing fee covered.

Credit Checker Moose

You need to go to a proper PI solicitor who won't charge you upfront. A general practice town solicitor is no use for such endeavours.

If I was left with a scar I would want redress.

sullivlo

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

You need to go to a proper PI solicitor who won't charge you upfront. A general practice town solicitor is no use for such endeavours.

If I was left with a scar I would want redress.

A barrister who looked at the case has said that there is a case for contributory negligence on my part, and that I could lose in a PI case in court, so I am unlikely to proceed tbh because I can't afford to be found liable and have all of the fees laid on to me. Easier to just cut my losses as it is and not bring more debt onto myself.

Large bottle small glass

sullivlo wrote: »

A barrister who looked at the case has said that there is a case for contributory negligence on my part, and that I could lose in a PI case in court, so I am unlikely to proceed tbh because I can't afford to be found liable and have all of the fees laid on to me. Easier to just cut my losses as it is and not bring more debt onto myself.

Would you put up a google map link?