Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Shared Liability

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #35
    Large bottle small glass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    SuperS54
    Registered Users Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,331 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #40
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,121 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Irishphotodesk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭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)


  • Options
    #46
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    sullivlo wrote: »
    No prosecution. Just shared liability.
    The Gardaí are not allowed to make such decisions as to liability.


  • Options
    #47
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Large bottle small glass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    Large bottle small glass wrote: »
    Would you put up a google map link?

    I can't do it on the phone but it was the junction of Gardiner street and Sean Macdermott street in Dublin. I was going straight (from Dorset street towards quays). He was coming from quays and turning right onto Sean Macdermott street.


  • Options
    #53
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    Maybe I'm just being a bit dim but it seems weird you both had green lights at the same time coming from different directions? Isn't it a bit of a cross roads there?


  • Options
    #54
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    Do you mean here OP, where your trajectory is the blue line and his the red?

    Yes I did this in paint, just trying to understand what happened.


  • Options
    #55
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    Do you mean here OP, where your trajectory is the blue line and his the red?

    Yes I did this in paint, just trying to understand what happened.
    Yes.


  • Options
    #56
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    Did he turn on a filter light and did you break the red light.

    Thats the only way you could be at fault in anyway.


  • Options
    #57
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    tretorn wrote: »
    Did he turn on a filter light and did you break the red light.

    Thats the only way you could be at fault in anyway.
    No. We both had a green light.


  • Options
    #58
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    Why are the Gardai and the barrister saying you contributed, how could you contribute if you were going straight and a car turned into your path.

    Have you witnesses and did you take pictures at the scene.


  • Options
    #59
    sullivlo
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭sullivlo


    tretorn wrote: »
    Why are the Gardai and the barrister saying you contributed, how could you contribute if you were going straight and a car turned into your path.

    Have you witnesses and did you take pictures at the scene.
    Witness yes.

    Barrister said I was travelling too quickly if I broke the window. I would refute that I hit with my elbow and weigh 100+kg.


  • Options
    #60
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    2nd opinion time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    sullivlo wrote: »
    No. We both had a green light.


    Have you asked either the Garda or barrister why they think you are liable? Only way I can see it is if they think you broke a light.


Advertisement