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

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

Options
  • 21-06-2019 2:12pm
    #1
    Auguste Comte
    Registered Users Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭


    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.


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭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)


  • Options
    #3
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Even more reason to have cycling insurance....


  • Options
    #4
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #6
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    No, so insurance can pay the lawyers...

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


  • Options
    #8
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #9
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


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


  • Options
    #10
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,869 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #11
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    obriendj
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭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....


  • Options
    #13
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,640 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,268 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #17
    Large bottle small glass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    Large bottle small glass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #21
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Mundo7976
    Registered Users Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭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!!!


  • Options
    #23
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,268 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #24
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #25
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


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


  • Options
    #26
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


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

    PC gone mad.


  • Options
    #27
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


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


  • Options
    #28
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #29
    Large bottle small glass
    Registered Users Posts: 1,720 ✭✭✭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."


  • Options
    #30
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭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".


Advertisement