- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Cyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian facing bankruptcy after claimant seeks almost £100,000 in costs
A crowdfunding campaign has been launched to cover the legal costs of a cyclist involved in a crash with a pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road. The judge found both parties equally liable for the collision, but by not putting forward a counterclaim, Robert Hazeldean has been unable to protect himself against a destructive costs award in the same way that the claimant has.
Pedestrian Gemma Brushett and cyclist Robert Hazeldean were both knocked unconscious following the collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015.
Brushett, who sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,” sued Hazeldean, and Judge Shanti Mauger found them both jointly liable for the crash.
The judge called Hazeldean 'a calm and reasonable road user' but the ruling means that he must pay Brushett compensation and legal fees. She is seeking almost £100,000 in costs.
The personal injury team at Levi Solicitors which is now acting on his behalf said that this amounted to “a total abuse of process.” The amount indicated by the judge was £10,000.
While he was living in London at the time of the incident, Hazeldean has since moved to France.
“The case has cast a shadow over our new life in France and left our future uncertain,” he said. “Covering the costs and the compensation is going to exceed £20,000 and will leave me bankrupt.
“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.”
Emma Farrell, head of Levi Solicitors’ personal injury team, explained: “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally. He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
Hazeldean said he delayed seeking legal assistance due to a lack of knowledge and concern about the costs.
“I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award.
“This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”
The court has ordered Brushett to pay Hazeldean’s costs for a scheduled third hearing.
You can find the GoFundMe page raising funds for Hazeldean here.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 26 min ago
Poor decision for Eurosport to repeatedly show the crash before knowing the outcome. Not cool.
- Daclu Trelub 1 hour 37 min ago
In a perfect world, we'd have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test....
- Sredlums 2 hours 4 min ago
These products are nothing but ridiculously expensive and superfluous, and they bring nothing but bragging rights....
- HollisJ 2 hours 6 min ago
As a bystander in all this, it seems to me that the only person trying to win imaginary internet points in this is you....
- Daclu Trelub 2 hours 20 min ago
How does Mr Lucy tell you he's a bit of an arsehole without telling you he's a bit of an arsehole?
- Daclu Trelub 2 hours 24 min ago
Of course they are, and not so different. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09B662CDN?crid=34M42BETAMFT0&th=1 The bugger's got four versions up now!
- squidgy 2 hours 41 min ago
At least the van driver was nowhere near the stationary cyclist.
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 44 min ago
The BMX racers are also no longer being supported. Kye Whyte said he's lost his GT sponsorship. It also looks like GT will no longer make BMX bikes.
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 33 min ago
The people causing traffic jams complaining about the traffic jams
Add new comment
61 comments
Interesting point, though I don't think you can quite compare peds-with-phones to drivers. The latter technology adds mass and momentum as well as causing a loss of awareness of the surroundings (due to reduced visibility and hearing, plus insulation from concequences), that would not otherwise be present.
The former brings only the loss of awareness part, but doesn't in itself make the user more lethal.
It does occur to me, on reflection, though, that perhaps this case is as much about how the legal system depends on how much money you have as it is about modes-of-transport. Surely if both were responsible, and both were injured, there should be a parity of outcome? But becuase one party appers to be quite wealthy (city worker?) they were in a position to employ expensive lawyers to get a payout from the other.
Generally it seems to me that an awful lot of what passes for moral judgments are just about relative power. Across a lot of issue, things get judged as moral or not depending on the degree of power of the parties involved (so tempted to start going on about Boris Johnson at this point).
I use a very loud "Mind Yourselves, Please" in a newspaper seller/costermongerish manner, especially when passing through that strange crossroadish bit in the middle of Reading where they have removed the traffic lights, it's odd but the peds tend not to step out in front of the buses and taxis.
Would being a British Cycling member of helped in these circumstances? What cover does their legal cover give?
Also in this case the only person who blames the cyclist is another cyclist!
Like a game of Asteroids, Do we all not treat everything as vectors, many objects moving at different speeds, in different directions & we're all safely calculating a way through?
Walking or running through a crowd, cycling or driving through traffic. Everyone is fine if everyone keeps doing what they're doing ... Its when this changes, someone stops (or jumps back in this case) when accidents happen.
This made me think of an incident last week. A man started crossing the road from the opposite side to me. He was a good distance in front of me, but crossing slowly. I judged that on our respective vectors, he wouldn't complete the crossing before I got to him, and we were probably on a collision course. So, there being no traffic beside / behind me, I pulled further towards the centre of my lane while holding my (moderate) speed in order to arc safely behind him while he finished crossing. At this point, he stops in the middle of the road, dances back and forth in front of me as if playing chicken, and motions as if to throw his cigarette at me, complaining that I was riding too fast and nearly hit him. While telling me this, I am stationary, 6 feet in front of him, having been able to stop in plenty of time in the face of this madness. I think he was pissed.
*EDIT - stationary (oh, the shame)*
If I see someone making a move toward stepping in the road, or even already in the road I shout "stay still" to them. Hopefully they hear and don't move so I am able to anticipate them not moving and take the best course of action (in front of behind of them). Shouting "don't move" means they may only hear the move and jump in one direction or another. Same as you don't say "don't panic" and use "keep calm"...
Also, it may help my defence if I have shouted a command and they have not listened - plus by shouting other people look so there are witnesses.
I prefer to shout "Oi!!" as it's easy to get a lot of volume and its aggressiveness makes people suddenly look up.
"Wait!" is another clear one. I tend to favour verbal warnings now over a bell. No warning noise is foolproof though - often I find people look up to work out where it's coming from, but still continue on their path. However, at least it means I have both hands covering the brakes just in case.
Can't this decision be appealed? If the law favours stupid people then there's something seriously wrong with the law. We all need to be accountable for our actions.
Crowdfund an appeal not to pay the fine.
Would have been easier for the cyclist if he'd killed her.
Tell that to Charlie Alliston
I'd be interested to know, if someone steps out in front of a car without looking, does the law blame the driver?
I am staggered that the judge in this case decided the blame was shared... stepping into traffic without looking is no more blameworthy than sounding an alarm, slowing down and attempting to avoid a collision. It does suggest an attempt (by that judge at least, if not the 'authorities', to discourage perfectly legal cycling on the roads by way of frightening cyclists off them.
It also disgusts me that the law in this country penalises moderation (i.e. not instantly suing everyone you meet) and rewards legal aggression. Doesn't surprise me of course, but it does disgust me.
The information isnt clear about what amount of time was available, but the judge ruling reads that the cyclist chose to go around the pedestrian rather than just stop. Because he chose to sound his horn and continue around the innatentive unpredicatable pedestrian he has been ruled partially liable.
Was it has fault? No.
Could he have done more to prevent the stupid pedestrian being hurt? sadly, yes (based on how the ruling reads)
Does this make it open season on cyclists? No.
Does this make it open season on people who just continue with dangerous acts because they hope you will continue in a certain direction and thus leave you space? Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'.
Stopping was an option because there was no one behind him?
Dangerous acts? Yes, in the case of the pedestrian.
How are any of those examples equivalent to a pedestrian ignoring red lights and staring at their phone instead?
"Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying 'but you had enough space'."
No it's not the same - please refer to the laws of physics and if that's too much for you perhaps just the fact cars kill nearly 2,000 people in the UK each year and bicycles struggle to make it to 1 every year.
The potential for harm from a car is magnitudes more - the fact you can't see that clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
How come costs were not 50:50 as well?
I believe that it's because he was defending a claim aganst him, without making a counter claim himself.
When he was found to be 50% responsible, that's enough to have failed in his defense and be liable for the other sides costs.
As the pedestrain was 50% to blame, if he had made a claim, she would also have lost her defense and could be responsible for his costs. In reality, under those circumstances the judge would probably rule that instead of paying 50% of each others cost you just pay your own.
I suppose a lesson for us all to join a cycle club/association that includes third party insurance and legal cover in its subs.
Disgusting outcome.
I'm absolutely baffled by this. Can the case be appealed? The 50:50 verdict just seems entirely incorrect and at odds with what the judge said. Seems like open-season on cyclists.
The idiot walked out into the road without looking while distracted by her phone, then darted back in front of the cyclist trying to avoid her, they were both injured and she was blatantly entirely at fault and the cause for the collision, but he's the one who has been sued and has to pay out?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria
Both the judgement and the sentancing here seem, not just suspect, but as biased as can be.
In no universe where adults are responsible for their own actions could anyone reasonably think it was even 50% the cyclist's fault, maybe 10-20% max!
But even if we do assume that it's equal blame, that doesn't explain why this poor guy is being forced to pay £1000's even up to £100,000 if they were equally to blame?
This is a scary precident, but I'm not sure what we can do, maybe write to your MP?
No, really? Regrettably, the way forward seems simple enough: be insured and always sue.
I'm surprised that he had no form of third party liability cover such as through a house insurance policy.
I'm not surprised that he has come a cropper in our legal system. I learned long ago that the notions of fairness and justice play no part in court processes. The law is a game played by solicitors and other actors. The witnesses, plaintiffs and the accused are merely the game pieces who pay for it.
Someone is clearly taking the proverbial in asking for £100,000 costs.
I'm still at a loss to what the cyclist did wrong except be on a bike on the road.
As far as I can see: he braked and sounded his horn and then went to go behind her; in the meantime, she looked up, saw him, and leapt backwards toward the traffic island she'd stepped off without looking. They were both knocked unconscious, but she lawyered up first.
Basically - he has been penalised for not being accurately able to see all possible futures in the multiverse like the bloke in Men in Black 3...
I think
That's the best reply I've heard to the people who say he should have predicted what she was going to do, calling it "roadcraft", as though you can predict everything and in time to react...
He should have avoided a collision though that might be a lot easier to say than to do. Also, he should have counter-sued, though I think the woman was a piece of shit for suing when in my opinion (and most reasonable people) she was 100% at fault.
"would have been limited to a mere £6,690"
"If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim"
And we wonder why the World hates lawyers!
I'd offer a hundred quid towards a car, if he simply runs her over and kills her his costs will be reduced to about £200
Bankruptcy is the answer.
Pages