• Love the cartoon at the end!

    From Spike@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 15 10:49:09 2023
    Cyclist who knocked over woman on phone must pay up to £100,000

    Man claims case, in which both were found equally to blame, may set
    alarming precedent

    Matthew Weaver and agencies
    Fri 21 Jun 2019 12.39 BST

    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.

    Both the cyclist, Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer, and the pedestrian, Gemma Brushett, who works in finance, were left unconscious after the
    rush-hour collision in July 2015.

    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.

    Sitting in Central London county court, Mauger said: “Ms Brushett and Mr Hazeldean were equally culpable in this accident and Mr Hazeldean, for
    whatever reason, hasn’t made a claim and so only Ms Brushett is getting a payout.”

    The court heard Brushett was one of a “throng” of people trying to cross the road at the start of the evening rush hour. She was looking at her
    mobile phone when crossing the road while the lights were green for
    traffic, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.

    The judge said Hazeldean was “a calm and reasonable road user” but was still liable to pay damages, adding: “Cyclists must be prepared at all
    times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”

    Hazeldean, who now works in France, said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course
    deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that
    it might set for other cyclists.

    “I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability
    of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.”

    Hazeldean said he realised he should have put in a counter-claim at the
    start of case but was reluctant to do so because he disliked the “claim culture”. He added: “Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”

    Hazeldean’s lawyers, Levi Solicitors, called for an urgent change in the
    law to protect cyclists from expensive payouts.

    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london>

    --
    Spike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spike@21:1/5 to Spike on Thu Jun 15 12:58:59 2023
    Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

    Cyclist who knocked over woman on phone must pay up to £100,000

    Man claims case, in which both were found equally to blame, may set
    alarming precedent

    Whatever is he talking about?

    He gets sued, decides not to counter-sue, loses, and get a stuffed for
    costs.

    Where’s the ‘alarming precedent’?

    [op cit]


    --
    Spike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 15 18:11:09 2023
    QUOTE:
    Brushett [the pedestrian victim of a chav-cyclist], 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 [the chav-cyclist who had caused her injuries]
    was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to
    be as much as £100,000.
    ENDQUOTE

    If the chav-on-the-bike had "fessed up early doors" and not fought the
    case, he'd only have had to pay £4,161.79 (or perhaps a little more).

    The other £95,000 or so he brought upon himself, the silly little sausage.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)