Pedestrian looking at phone hit by cyclist gets compensation

[PK99]

I suspect that very few people actually make a living from teaching yoga, and I'd be surprised if she is among that number.

That said, the investment bank that she works for (according to her LinkedIn profile) seem to be under the impression that they still employ her as a Business Development Manager: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/adviser/adv/contact-us

not quite correct:

"is responsible for supporting business development managers and financial planners"

ie not highly paid.

 

[NickWi]

The Claimants Barrister's point of view.
https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

As read it, and I might be exagerating a bit here, but the cyclist appears to have done a sound the horn, head down, go for it charge, and expected others to get out of the way.

 

[C R]

The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.

I expect that we might have pilloried him for straying outside his field of expertise.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Wonder if he has any connection to any insurance companies?

 

[Cycleops]

It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.

It would have been nice yes but that was not his job or his intent in making this statement. I believe he wanted people to be aware of the facts where many thought the blame lay solely with the lady who stepped out.

 

[classic33]

It would have been nice yes but that was not his job or his intent in making this statement. I believe he wanted people to be aware of the facts where many thought the blame lay solely with the lady who stepped out.

One of those simple things that used to be taught at school dropped out of favour, and then re-introduced. Check before you step into the road, don't assume it's safe to do so.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

One of those simple things that used to be taught at school dropped out of favour, and then re-introduced. Check before you step into the road, don't assume it's safe to do so.

Just as we should emphasise that road users should only proceed when they can see the way ahead to be clear.

 

[classic33]

Just as we should emphasise that road users should only proceed when they can see the way ahead to be clear.

Vehicle was already moving, having passed through on green. "You may proceed, but only if it is safe to do so"

Now get the same message over/across to motor vehicle drivers.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Vehicle was already moving, having passed through on green. "You may proceed, but only if it is safe to do so"

Now get the same message over/across to motor vehicle drivers.

We should all comply.

From his own witness statement:
“…..can see people crossing at the junction of King William Street with Cannon Street so I have sounded my airhorn on my bike, which caused people to part and leave a gap in the middle of the road. I continued up towards King William Street, but due to the people in the middle island and still crossing I was positioned on the right hand side of my lane, close to a yellow bollard on the middle island.

Mostly, people get away with it, or exercise greater caution. He didn't on this day, with life-affecting consequences.

 

[Arjimlad]

I rather get the impression that Mr Hazeldean's evidence and witnesses might have been better presented.

 

[nickyboy]

The solicitor for the pedestrian puts his side here.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

I don't have much argument against the award of compensation, it is the costs claim that I find objectionable, and the fact that the lesson he thinks the case gives is the need for cyclists to have insurance for cases like this. It would have been nice for him to have thought about the road safety aspects of the case.

Putting to one side the quantum of the costs (the widely reported £100k is being said to be much too high), the defendants problem was that he chose not to counterclaim. Had he counterclaimed, the plaintiff would have been the defendant in his counterclaim. As a result, what would probably have happened was that he would be found liable for the initial claim (and thus have to pay costs or a substantial part thereof) but she would have been found liable for the counterclaim (and thus have to pay costs or a substantial part thereof).

Were I a regular urban cyclist I would certainly have specific insurance to cover the legal costs associated with an issue like this. Luckily all I have to deal with are errant sheep which would be difficult to claim against were they to jump out into the road, regardless of whether they were on their mobile phones or not

 

[benb]

So having pondered this for a while, I have come to the following opinions:

- If there were pedestrians already in the road, and the cyclist went for a gap behind the last one, who then unexpectedly changed direction back into his path, then on balance I would agree that he was partially liable for the collision for not leaving sufficient room to account for unexpected behaviour like this, which was a reasonably foreseeable event.

- If the pedestrian started to cross while the cyclist was already very close, making a collision very hard to avoid, then I don't see how the cyclist was liable at all.

- I don't think we have enough information to know for sure which of the 2 above actually happened, or something between the 2.

- Regardless of the above, the judgement should, IMO, have given more serious criticism of the pedestrian crossing whilst looking at her phone and not checking for traffic at all.

- I look forward to judges coming to similar judgements when a driver hits a cyclist who unexpectedly changes direction.

 

[icowden]

The costs claim is pie in the sky anyway. It's just a random figure plucked out of the air. There will be court costs, the barristers fees and the solicitors costs, plus his barrister and solicitor. He does appear to have had very poor legal advice on this.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

The costs claim is pie in the sky anyway. It's just a random figure plucked out of the air. There will be court costs, the barristers fees and the solicitors costs, plus his barrister and solicitor. He does appear to have had very poor legal advice on this.

He doesn't appear to have taken, or listened to Legal Advice, it seems to me.

He might not want to contribute to the Claims Culture (as he's reported as saying), he might think it's smart to represent himself. Either a fool, or arrogant, or naive, or summat, but certainly not smart. It's a bit like the interminable episodes of Grand Designs where people think they can do things that they manifestly can't.