Effin hell (cyclist/pedestrian legal case in the UK)

Auguste Comte

Shafted because he didn't put a claim in. I wonder would any insurance cover something like this?

A cyclist who knocked over a woman who was looking at her mobile phone while crossing a road has been ordered to pay about £100,000 in compensation and costs in a case he claims could set an alarming precedent.

Link.

Fian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london

cyclist held liable for 100k legal costs (uk)

Pinch Flat

Even more reason to have cycling insurance....

meeeeh

Fian wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london

cyclist held liable for 100k legal costs (uk)

A person doing decent thing and not lodging a counter claim, not doing much wrong on the road is taken to cleaners. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

meeeeh

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Even more reason to have cycling insurance....

So insurance can pay out to greedy people who don't know how to cross the road but know how to claim?

cdaly_

meeeeh wrote: »

So insurance can pay out to greedy people who don't know how to cross the road but know how to claim?

No, so insurance can pay the lawyers...

meeeeh

cdaly_ wrote: »

No, so insurance can pay the lawyers...

This would settle out of court if it was up to insurance.

check_six

meeeeh wrote: »

A person doing decent thing and not lodging a counter claim, not doing much wrong on the road is taken to cleaners. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

How do these things work? If it was decided that there was 50/50 liability do you cover your own medical costs and own legal costs? Or do they add everything up and split it in two? Does the lady who strode into the road looking at her phone have to pay £100,000 as well?
All seems a bit mad. Is this just a swizz by some legal sorts to get paid for the case and then get paid again for the appeal?

Raam

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-cover-rob-hazeldean039s-legal-fees

Thargor

The judge, Shanti Mauger, said both were equally to blame for the incident on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not.

Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.

Is there anything preventing him putting a claim in now?

meeeeh

Thargor wrote: »

Is there anything preventing him putting a claim in now?

I assume it would just incur extra legal costs. I think who pays the legal cost is decided separately to the actual award. The money she will recive is not much but as I can understand he has to pay hers and his legal cost.

obriendj

meeeeh wrote: »

A person doing decent thing and not lodging a counter claim, not doing much wrong on the road is taken to cleaners. I'm sorry but that is not justice.

Very disheartening to read this.

How is blame 50/50. We don't have all details of course but walking across the road reading your phone while the light is red should occur 80% blame at least.

And if blame is 50/50 then why a payout....

josip

So she gets £4,000.
Her legal parasites could get up to £100,000.
He has to pay both.
We must be nearing the day when certain elements of society get strung up en masse.

ted1

How much was she claiming for? Is it not immoral to charge 25 times what a pay out is? The legal system is very very flawed.

How many hours work does it take to charge 100k.

Canis Lupus

I just.... I don't understand........



lol I see twitter and instagram accounts have been deactivated. I imagine someone is getting a lot of grief online for being a bad human.

magicbastarder

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I imagine someone is getting a lot of grief online for being a bad human.

who? the woman, or her legal team?

Large bottle small glass

I would question the reporting here in connection with the costs.

UK is very similar to here in relation to court procedures etc. That level of award here would be heard in the district or perhaps Circuit court, where costs for two days wouldn't be a fraction of 100k.

Two days costs for both sides here would probably amount to 40k here or so in high court.

I doubt this man had representation and if so would only have to pay her costs.

If he had representation and they advised him to run a £5k case with a £100k risk in costs he should sue them.

A common tactic of insurance companies is to pay a lodgment into court as an offer. If Plaintiff rejects offer and doesn't get better from judge she would be on the hook for the difference in costs between district costs and high court costs. Which here is a gigantic difference as district court costs are miserable while high court costs are insane.

magicbastarder

i would assume that the UK has an equivalent of the taxing master; which in theory should be able to knock a significant chunk off the costs.
otherwise the winning side could submit whatever costs they wanted, and he'd have to pay, because he was the losing party.

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

I doubt this man had representation and if so would only have to pay her costs.

on the flipside, if he was being taken to the high court and opted *not* to get expert help, that would have been a strange choice.

Large bottle small glass

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the flipside, if he was being taken to the high court and opted *not* to get expert help, that would have been a strange choice.

It was a county court sitting equivalent of our circuit court.

£72k would be upper limit for both sides for 2 days according to Google in high court. County court should be a lot less

Accident was 2015 so too late to counter claim.

He had a lot of time to handle this better. He has been royally screwed but you have to be able to stand up for yourself.

The £100k is boll0x but it makes a better story

Sonny noggs

Expect the resident boards legal eagles to defend this to the hilt.

Mundo7976

“Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.”

So if she was ugly as fcuk the judge would have awarded £0, or £50k for cosmetic surgery!!!

ted1

cdaly_ wrote: »

No, so insurance can pay the lawyers...

Generally if there’s no insurance the lawyers won’t take a case as there will be no cash available to pay them

meeeeh

For those who have The Times subscription there is a better article about that cycling case. Her solicitors are looking for 92000 in legal cost, his are 6 or 7 thousand. He made a mistake to represent himself at first and didn't lodge counter claim. That makes him liable for all legal costs although there is possible claimant's legal costs will be capped at 10k by judge.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/robert-hazeldean-cyclist-who-hit-phone-zombie-faces-100-000-bill-3ddbccv0v

tomasrojo

The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

Sonny noggs

tomasrojo wrote: »

The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

PC gone mad.

magicbastarder

he was a judge, not a PC.
but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

alchemist33

tomasrojo wrote: »

The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

Presumably this was because she was claiming she was now disfigured

Large bottle small glass

tomasrojo wrote: »

The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

Reminded me of a Dylan song

When the judge he saw Reilly's daughter
His old eyes deepened in his head,
Sayin', "Gold will never free your father,
The price, my dear, is you instead."

Sonny noggs

magicbastarder wrote: »

he was a judge, not a PC.
but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

Yeah, l meant the poster I quoted. Commenting on her attractiveness in the circumstances was not ‘creepy’. Anyone who thinks it was is messed up and actively looking to take offence where none exists.

tomasrojo

alchemist33 wrote: »

Presumably this was because she was claiming she was now disfigured

But all he has to say is "My judgement is that you have not been disfigured".

tomasrojo

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Yeah, l meant the poster I quoted. Commenting on her attractiveness in the circumstances was not ‘creepy’. Anyone who thinks it was is messed up and actively looking to take offence where none exists.

I think by describing me as "messed up" perhaps you are looking to cause offence.

tomasrojo

I think I meant "paternalistic" rather than "patrician" though.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

he was a judge, not a PC.
but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

Was the judge not female?

Lumen

RobbieMD wrote: »

Was the judge not female?

tomasrojo

RobbieMD wrote: »

Was the judge not female?

Yeah, actually, that does seem to be the case.

Ok, count me messed up!

Lumen

This case is apparently headed for the perverse outcome that two people who are supposedly equally responsible for something happening, and who suffered more or less the same physical injuries from an accident, have completely unequal outcomes imposed upon them by a court.

Why didn't the judge just make each party pay their own costs? Was that amongst her options?

tomasrojo

I thought I'd see what Martin Porter says.

In this thread he says that home contents insurance would cover the liability, probably.

And that the £100k on costs is excessive and will be assessed downwards by a costs judge:
https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/1142172009281011712

tomasrojo

Also, even if he has home insurance, it's too late to involve them.
https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/1142333036975013888

jam_mac_jam

Sonny noggs wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

The comment about the plaintiff's "very attractive appearance" is patrician as hell, and really quite creepy.

PC gone mad.

It's actually the complete opposite of pc

Sonny noggs

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, actually, that does seem to be the case.

Ok, count me messed up!

tomasrojo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's actually the complete opposite of pc

I was wrong. The judge was a woman.

Sonny noggs

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's actually the complete opposite of pc

Not really

Fann Linn

obriendj wrote: »

Very disheartening to read this.

How is blame 50/50. We don't have all details of course but walking across the road reading your phone while the light is red should occur 80% blame at least.

And if blame is 50/50 then why a payout....

Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

Correction. Just read it again, she broke the red light but the judge stated that 'he had a duty of care'.

tomasrojo

Fann Linn wrote: »

Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

He didn't break a red light. I think the judge's argument was that he should have anticipated her walking out, because cyclists should anticipate all sorts.

RustyNut

Fann Linn wrote: »

Read this earlier,. If I recall correctly ts 50/50 because she was looking at her mobile whilst crossing and he broke the red light.

I got the opposite impression, I took it from the article that he had the green.

The court heard Brushett was one of a “throng” of people trying to cross the road at the start of the evening rush hour. She was looking at her mobile phone when crossing the road while the lights were green for traffic, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.

Fann Linn

tomasrojo wrote: »

He didn't break a red light.

Yep. I corrected above.

tomasrojo

I find the 50/50 bit a little hard to understand. The bit the judge said, as quoted, doesn't seem to imply any fault on his part, except that he should have expected the unexpected, but there doesn't seem to be a recognition of an equivalent duty on the pedestrian not to do the unexpected.

magicbastarder

RobbieMD wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

he was a judge, not a PC.
but yes, not a sane or sensible man by the sound of it.

Was the judge not female?

It was a joke.

Sonny noggs

This is part of the vulnerability hierarchy. A motorist has a responsibility to ensure the safety of those more vulnerable (cyclists, pedestrians) and a cyclist has the same responsibility towards pedestrians.

Everyone is also responsible for their own actions obviously.

tomasrojo

Hoist with own petard, I assumed a judge was a man. Let that be a lesson to me.