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.