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).