Contributory Negligence???

[Slim]

Thanks for all the replies.

Unfortunately, it looks like while there is a possibility for the company to reduce or wriggle out of a payment they will make every effort to do so. As with their employment practises, the bottom line is on their bank balance.

 

[marinyork]

I wondered how would the company practically verify that they were wearing a helmet?

It seems quite a dangerous route to go down because you could have a claim and then the other party fills in the forms a few months later and have a section on helmets and it would be overwhelmingly tempting to say no they weren't wearing a helmet. Once you arm someone with the knowledge about helmets and perhaps even a section dedicated to finding out whether they were wearing a helmet people will be exploiting it.

I remember being interviewed by an insurance investigator and when they found out I was a cyclist you could almost imagine them jotting down on the piece of paper - cyclist, must be lying, company should dismiss anything they say.

 

[marinyork]

I wondered how would the company practically verify that they were wearing a helmet?

It seems quite a dangerous route to go down because you could have a claim and then the other party fills in the forms a few months later and have a section on helmets and it would be overwhelmingly tempting to say no they weren't wearing a helmet. Once you arm someone with the knowledge about helmets and perhaps even a section dedicated to finding out whether they were wearing a helmet people will be exploiting it.

I remember being interviewed by an insurance investigator and when they found out I was a cyclist you could almost imagine them jotting down on the piece of paper - cyclist, must be lying, company should dismiss anything they say.

 

[Slim]

The thing to remember is that they are in business to screw as much money out of people as they can in the way of premiums. They will also do as much as possible to pay as little as they can, as late as they can. "Doing the right thing" isn't even on the agenda.

I was just hoping for a minor victory (but wasn't holding my breath).

 

[CopperBrompton]

Insurance companies will always give this a go. It's why there was so much opposition amongst motorcyclists to the advice added to the Highway Code to wear hi-viz and a white helmet: the fear was that, although it's only advice, failing to follow it would open the door to a contributory negligence claim.

 

[MartinC]

I know that Insurance companies trying this on creates a lot of fear and irritation but as Ben points out they're bound to give it a go because it's in the interests of their policyholders as well as their shareholders.

The significant thing is what the courts decide and every (AFAIK) ruling so far has not reduced damages. The more this is tested in the courts the better. Eccentric judges can always come up with strange decisions but there isn't any evidence that stands up to legal scrutiny that helmets are effective in accidents involving motor accidents so the more times the arguments get exercised in court the better.

 

[Origamist]

The significant thing is what the courts decide and every (AFAIK) ruling so far has not reduced damages. The more this is tested in the courts the better. Eccentric judges can always come up with strange decisions but there isn't any evidence that stands up to legal scrutiny that helmets are effective in accidents involving motor accidents so the more times the arguments get exercised in court the better.

Correct and worth reapeating.

In the Smith v Finch case the judge was of the view, or had sympathy with the view that the cyclist was at fault for not wearing a helmet. These comments were seemingly/arguably obiter. However, the defendant was unable to prove that a helmet would have made any difference - as a consequence, no reduction in damages was made.