Cyclist breaks red light, takes High Court action, only 80% responsible - "great outcome" per judge.

TOMs WIFE

Why does a cyclist who breaks a red light only 80% responsible for injuries? If he hadn't broke the lights, the car that injured him couldn't have injured him.

Why isn't this zero award, and court costs awarded against the cyclist? Why does the judge think this is "an excellent outcome"?

Irish Times

A cyclist who broke a red light at a junction in Dublin’s inner city, was hit by a car and ended up with head injuries has settled a High Court action for €190,000.The settlement is based on an agreement that the cyclist, Anton Mazilu, is 80 per cent responsible for the incident near the North Strand Road on July 27th, 2020.

Mr Mazilu’s senior counsel, Michael Byrne, told the High Court his client was thrown off his bike into the air and landed on his head. He suffering devastating head injuries following the collision, which happened in the early morning on a wet day.

Mr Mazilu (64), from Comuna Halaucesti, Romania, sued the motorist, taxi driver Derek Kiernan, of Westbrook Drive, Balbriggan, Co Dublin, over the incident. It was claimed there was a failure to keep a proper lookout and a failure to see or heed the presence of the cyclist on the road.

Mr Kiernan denied all the claims and contended that the collision occurred when the cyclist proceeded into the junction through a red traffic light when it was manifestly unsafe to do so and at a time when the driver could not reasonably have anticipated that he would do so.

He further contended there was contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist who, he said, had failed to obey the red light that was showing to him.He claimed Mr Mazilu cycled suddenly and without warning across the path of the car without first satisfying himself that other road users were aware of his presence on the roadway.

Mr Byrne told the court that Mr Mazilu was a self-employed welder in Dublin before the incident.

He said the cyclist broke a red light at the junction and was cycling through when the lights on the taxi driver’s side turned green and vehicles moved off and the taxi driver advanced.

Counsel said the speed at the point of impact was in the region of 33km/h.

According to witness statements, Mr Byrne said it would appear that the driver would have had no chance to see the cyclist and dash cam footage from the car was also available.

Counsel said Mr Mazilu suffered devastating head injuries and was in hospital in Dublin until September and later went to stay with his daughters in Italy to recover before returning home to Romania.

Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds noted the settlement. She congratulated both sides on the excellent outcome, which she said she had no hesitation in approving.

Madd002

Wow, so even if your right your wrong, so poor taxi driver insurance gonna be painful for next 5yrs.

Peregrinus

Why does a cyclist who breaks a red light only 80% responsible for injuries? If he hadn't broke the lights, the car that injured him couldn't have injured him.

Why isn't this zero award, and court costs awarded against the cyclist? Why does the judge think this is "an excellent outcome"?

This was a settlement; the two parties agreed it. The judge didn't award anybody anything.

The insurance company could have fought the action, and on the facts as given here there was some prospect of a complete victory, with no award to the cyclist, and an order for costs against him. But the facts as given here are only partial; the trial didn't proceed, so we don't know what the witnesses would have said; we only know the "headlines" that counsel for both sides included in their statements to the court (likely, made before the settlement was agreed). So the defence clearly reckoned that, as well as a prospect of victory, there was also a prospect of loss, and if there was a loss the award against them might have been very much than €120,000. We can infer that the total damages were agreed at €600,000 — which may include loss of income and/or costs of future care resulting from an acquired brain injury — and the insurer's reckoned accepting liability for 20% of this was a good deal.

The legal principles here are clear — just because the other guy was negligent does not mean that you weren't. And, it is negligent for a road user to assume that other road users will not be negligent.

Many accidents wouldn't happen but for the independent negligence of two or more people; if even one of them had done what he ought to have done there would have been no accident. In the bad old days the rule used to be that the last person who could have prevented the accident but didn't (in this case, that would be the taxi-driver) bore the full responsibility, but that was changed in I think the early 1960s to a rule that the liability could be apportioned between plaintiff and defendant in proportion to the degrees of fault of each of them. In this case the cyclist was mainly at fault for running a red light, but the insurers obviously reckoned that the taxi driver risked being found negligent to some degree for proceeding at a junction without ascertaining that the way was clear. They reckoned accepting a 20% liability was a good deal.

JP Liz V1

All payment from the taxi driver's insurance, madness when the cyclist was fully in the wrong

endacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257346#Comment_121257346

All payment from the taxi driver's insurance company, not from his insurance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257351#Comment_121257351

Rolleyes

tjhook

That the judge described the outcome as "excellent" would at least hint that she would have been inclined to produce a similar judgement.

I wonder would it work both ways? If a driver flew through a pedestrian crossing and hit somebody who was crossing, would blame be shared also on the basis that the pedestrian should be on the lookout for road users being negligent?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257437#Comment_121257437

If a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car that clearly wasn't going to stop or was travelling at such speed that it couldn't stop in the space available, yeah, the pedestrian is exposed to being found to be contributorily negligent, even though the car had been signalled to stop.

This doesn't arise very often since pedestrians, for obvious reasons, tend not to do this. A car approaching a pedestrian crossing at speed is highly visible, so it's not something that pedestrians tend not to notice. When there's a running-down at a pedestrian crossing it's more usually because the pedestrian is already crossing, the driver fails to spot them, and by the time this is apparent the pedestrian doesn't have time to turn around and clear the crossing.

Similarly, if this incident had involved two cars, the collision might not have happened, since the driver of the car that had the green light would be more likely to have seen the approaching car that didn't stop — cars are much more visible than bicycles, and motorists are often unconsciously looking for cars, so that cyclists/pedestrians don't register. But if it had happened, yeah, the driver who had the green light would still be at risk of being found contributorily negligent for failing to spot/to react to the oncoming car.

Green Peter

There was an insurance policy on the taxi and it's clearly being used to pay everybody, including the legal fees. It's no wonder we are paying thru the nose for insurance

tjhook

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257453#Comment_121257453

Wow, interesting, thanks. I'm very uncomfortable with the principle that when one person breaks the law and as a result another person is harmed, they share blame because the person suffering harm should be looking out for others breaking the law. But I suppose that's where we are.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257511#Comment_121257511

Nitpick: In this case the cyclist did the most egregious lawbreaking by running a red light and it was the cyclist, not another person, who was harmed. But the taxi driver also broke the law by proceeding through a junction without checking that it was clear.

The bottom line is that they've both broken the law. It's not legal to drive negligently. A careful driver is alert for things that could go wrong, and that includes (but is not limited to) things going wrong because other road users are not careful.

Inviere

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257539#Comment_121257539

Weren't there witness statements to attest to the driver of the taxi having no chance to see the cyclist, backed up with dashcam footage? It seems madness that one person made a decision to wrecklessly ignore traffic control systems, the other person couldn't seemingly react to this, and both are deemed culpable.

As said above, no wonder insurance premiums are so costly.

Rosahane

If you read through all the reams of pages of Road Traffic leglislation you will notice a line at the very bottom that says:

”Notwithstanding all the above, it doesn’t apply to cyclists”

😝

phill106

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257539#Comment_121257539

It doesnt sound like the driver was negligent?

According to witness statements, Mr Byrne said it would appear that the driver would have had no chance to see the cyclist and dash cam footage from the car was also available.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257779#Comment_121257779

The insurance company felt content enough to settle rather than fight the claim so it sounds like they believed the driver was somewhat negligent. Do bear in mind that a green light does not mean go.

Robbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257502#Comment_121257502

It's worth noting that the solicitors on record for the defendant are AXA Legal Services. Readers may wish to draw their own conclusion as to whose interests are best served here by this type of vertical integration.

SharkMX

About 10 yeas ago myself and a few mates were doing a long cycle one Saturday. I was in a group lagging a few meters behind when we came to a roundabout. The group right in front of me went straight out into the roundabout at full speed and two of them went into the back door of a car that was going around the roundabout. One of them had very bad head injuries that he never really fully recovered from.

He got €70,000. Dont know what happened with the driver after, but all of us after said that it was 100% not the drivers fault. The car was even ahead of them when the came out on to the roundabout. My group was slowing down coming to the roundabout. The guys in front made no attempt to slow down.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257779#Comment_121257779

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257568#Comment_121257568

I've already pointed out that we don't know what evidence would have been given on this (or any other) point if the trial had proceeded, and of course we don't know what the dashcam footage would have shown. But the insurance company does know, and that knowledge presumably informed their decision to settle.

(All we have are the newpaper reports of the opening addresses made by counsel at the trial before the matter was settled. In those addresses counsel summarise the evidence they expect to be given that is helpful to their clients, while discretely passing over the evidence that might be less helpful. So don't treat them as a comprehensive and impartial summary of all the relevant facts.)

Green Peter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257882#Comment_121257882

What are ya saying

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257975#Comment_121257975

He's suggesting that the interests of the insurer here (AXA) are not necessarily the same as the interests of the insured (the taxi driver) and that, to the extent they are in conflict, AXA Legal (presumably, the in-house legal department of AXA) are more likely to act in the interests of AXA than of the taxi driver.

In actual fact, AXA is the client here; as insurer they take on the taxi driver's liabilities but with that comes the right to manage the defence of any claim and to fight or settle as they think best. And any lawyer acting for AXA is bound to act in AXA's interests and on AXA's instructions. It's not the case that if AXA instructed an external firm, that firm would reject instructions to settle and would insist on defending the case.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257796#Comment_121257796

it is entirely a risk mitigation

they look at it as saving 800k

mickdw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257796#Comment_121257796

Green does not mean go...... but red does it would appear.

To be expected I guess the way everything is gone to sh1t lately.

Robbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258057#Comment_121258057

These are all fair and true points.

Having no dog in this particular fight, I do wonder about the consumer benefits of having these vertically integrated arrangements from a competition law perspective. From my experience, I know of one such operation (not AXA) that were handling 3-5k new cases per annum. With just three retained solicitors. The day-to-day management of the litigation on your claim was handled by new graduates. It reduced "legal costs" significantly...until it didn't when all the chickens (under provisioning, trying to settle everything for nuisance value, missed dates, general lack of knowledge of procedure) came home to roost. Still the lads who hatched the plan made their bonuses, got their promotions, were able to sell it as a success story when seeking a move to a competitor etc.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258074#Comment_121258074

But they obviously felt there were grounds for a risk against the driver.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258123#Comment_121258123

Nobody is suggesting red means go. However, I was repeating the point made earlier by @Peregrinus that the driver didn't see the cyclist probably because they didn't look properly. The way ahead wasn't safe for the driver to proceed.

(and before it's said, no, I'm not condoning the behaviour of the person on the bike)

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258238#Comment_121258238

Not necessarily, the risk is inconsistency with judgements, how do you judge what %someone is at fault?

this is why they always settle, they don't trust the courts, for good reason

kirving

I can't post it as I'm not allowed, but I have a copy of CCTV footage showing a car break a red light in an apartment complex carpark, so not a "real" red light. A full four seconds later the car comes to a stop on their own side of road which is wide enough for two cars.

It is then hit by another driver who proceeded on their green light, in the center of the road, but couldn't stop in time when presented with an obstruction.

In this case, the driver who broke the light is somewhat responsible for the collision, but so too is the driver who proceeded without caution, and wasn't able to stop in time. The light breaking happened a long time before impact, and so IMO has less of contribution the the collision.

Perhaps the cyclist here broke a light 10 seconds before impact, in which case the driver should probably have seen them.

Smee_Again

A lot of people here seem to be struggling to understand the old adage "Just because a road user is doing something stupid, that doesn't mean you can hit them"

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257511#Comment_121257511

another, cruder analogy - if i leave my black bin out on the road and it's full of something heavy, and you hit it in your car and do significant damage - does the fact that i should not have put my bin out on the road like that absolve you of blame from having driven into a stationary object?

monkeybutter

and this is with dashcam footage and witnesses agreeing there was no way the taxi could have avoided him

top floor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257796#Comment_121257796

Or did they just believe that the judge would find the driver negligent, even if the insurer thought differently? There's a small but significant difference.

Are judges reluctant to see anyone that has clearly suffered serious injury sent away empty handed?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258912#Comment_121258912

To answer your first question, it could be either but the insurance company felt thaat agreeing a settlement with the man was the cheapest option for them. Which is how they usually approach cases.

endacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257363#Comment_121257363

It’s the company that chose to settle. Not the taxi driver or the court.

jackofalltrades

How much would it cost to take this to court for the insurance company?

What's the minimum that the taxi driver could expect to be found responsible?

I've seen other cases where judges don't like to leave injured parties with nothing.

So maybe the insurance company looked at the costs to defend it plus the risk of some kind of payment.

And saw that chances of recovering costs as nil. So just paid something out to have a risk free certainty.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258912#Comment_121258912

If someone is badly injured they generally get the bounce of the ball if there is any doubt. No one knows what might come out in cross examination. The judge might have raised an eyebrow on hearing the opening and the lawyers took it as a signal to settle.

About 20 years ago a judge held the Sandycove Bathers Association 20% liable for injuries suffered by a guy who dived into the sea t the 40 foot and hit his head on a rock, because there were no signs warning people that it is dangerous to dive into the sea without checking the depth of the water and for obstructions. As a result, the Association can no longer get public liability insurance and had to wind up. Because of that there is no one putting acid on the access and egress [points which are now more slippy than before. It is now more dangerous for sensible people to vist the place than before!

martco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121260175#Comment_121260175

and as a consequence that taxi driver will definitely be penalised now via his future premium costs, he will have gained a risk profile he appears to have been completely undeserving of and he will be surely affected by dark arts I've seen firsthand practiced within the insurance industry that will dog him for years to come i.e. when attempting to shop around for future cover (or who knows what other affiliated things)

this judgement as reported puzzled the hell out of me too and I can't see how it's excellent at all, whilst I have every sympathy for the cyclist I cannot see how the taxi driver can be blamed 20% due to the circumstance that he was merely physically present at that time and place following the rules that govern the scenario.

I am glad some money was an outcome for the cyclist but it should come from general funding e.g. likes of MIBI

NUTLEY BOY

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257346#Comment_121257346

On what basis would you argue that the cyclist was fully in the wrong.

Dr Turk Turkelton

The problem with defending this in front of a judge is because no matter who is at fault he will make sure the legal teams get paid so he has to make the insurance company pay up if the other party have no insurance.

NUTLEY BOY

Use of the road very rarely carries with it absolute rights or absolute strict constructions e.g. he broke a red light so he is 100% wrong.

A green light does not confer an absolute right either to blaze on through regardless. You must still keep a proper look out.

Remember the basic concept of negligence is that of a failure to do what a reasonable driver would do or doing something that a reasonable and prudent driver would not do. Negligence is in effect a breach of the duty of care where it is owed to fellow road users.

A plea of contributory negligence is based on the premise that the plaintiff has shown, on the evidence, a want or lack of care for his own safety and wellbeing by his conduct.

In this matter there are two possible difficulties for the cyclist as far as contributory negligence goes.

1. By failing to stop at a red light he contributed to causation of the accident.
2. I do not know if the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Although there is no requirement for a cyclist to wear a helmet if, on the medical evidence, it could be shown that the wearing of a helmet would have reduced the severity of the injuries there are grounds for arguing that the plaintiff has contributed to causation of his injuries by failure to do so as per the ratio of Denning MR in Froom & Ors v Butcher [1975] EWCA Civ 6 (21 July 1975) (bailii.org) - a case relating to seat belts but whose principles can be argued as far as helmets go.

NUTLEY BOY

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257437#Comment_121257437

Not necessarily.

The observation might have simply meant that, on the outline facts, the plaintiff did well. It might have been a very different outcome - in either direction - if the matter had proceeded to a full hearing and we saw all of the evidence.

niallpatrick

It is legal to cut across a red light in traffic provided you have no alternative and proceed with caution. Example would be a bottle neck at a pedestrian crossing during rush hour

Cut across a red light dead of night/dawn you're at fault. Honestly the cyclist deserved nothing other than what they've already received and that's full medical care.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121267954#Comment_121267954

Just how is that driver in any way wrong?

again, just because party A did something wrong has no bearing on whether party B did nothing wrong.

just because someone breaks a red does not mean you get to run them down. we don't know whether the taxi driver was also negligent.

breezy1985

The impact was at "around 33kph". Is that a normal 0-30 speed for a car these days (I cycle at around 25kph and am usually way faster than a car off the blocks).

Would this be the reason why the taxi driver was 20% at fault ?

Struggling to get my head around it. If I broke a red (I don't) and got hit I would never even think of putting in a claim for my stupidity.

magicbastarder

if you suffered 'devastating head injuries' and there was an indication that the other party was partly at fault, you'd probably have plenty of people willing to advise you to proceed.

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121267319#Comment_121267319

Are cyclists not to adhere to the rules of the road, follow traffic lights, not proceed on red?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121268917#Comment_121268917

All road users must follow the road traffic laws (the ROTR is not the law!). However, just because the person on the bike was in the wrong does not mean that the person driving the car was not also in the wrong. It appears that the insurance company also believed that the person in the car could be found at fault by the court and therefore settled the claim before the court had the opportunity.

Henry James

It reminds me of a story I read of in some foreign country. A driver drove through a red light a crashed into an Irish man driving by.

The judge found for the light breaker because if the Irish guy was not there the light breaker couldn't have hit him. No joke that's what it said.

Henry James

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121267427#Comment_121267427

OT but a lot of pedestrians think they have absolute to walk on to a pedestrian crossing without any check as to how near traffic is and often on phone.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121276869#Comment_121276869

If you’re approaching a pedestrian crossing and there’s a pedestrian nearby, you could take your foot off the accelerator briefly so you’re able to stop if they want to cross the road. Or you could tut at their road skills as you sail on by.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121267319#Comment_121267319

Surely if the cyclist cycled through a red light, and it can be shown that the driver has no time/chance to react and avoid a collision, would point to the driver not being in the wrong, the accident was unavoidable due solely to the cyclists actions. Otherwise, should a driver be required to remain static in case a cyclist breaks the lights and crosses the driver’s path? We all have to use the road and obey the rules, if you break them and suffer as a result, and the person who collided with you could not avoid impact as a result of your actions, then you are responsible for your injuries, and any damage to the driver’s car.

The law is an ass unfortunately when it comes to insurance and personal responsibility.

kowloonkev

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121269248#Comment_121269248

And why wouldn't insurance companies be happy to settle because they won't lose anything and every cent will be added on to the next set of premiums.

Insurance companies are correct not to trust judges when it comes to common sense though.

It'll soon be like China where people are deliberately cycling into oncoming cars for the payout...and who knows what really happened in this case.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121277077#Comment_121277077

You seem to have knowledge of all the facts relating to the case and not just those reported on. Maybe you'd care to share them with us so we can benefit from your wisdom?