The barrister who represented Gemma Brushett, the pedestrian who sued cyclist Robert Hazeldean for hitting her although she was found to be partly liable, has given his view on the case.
Aneurin Moloney says in his opening paragraph on a blog post: "I accept that I am not an independent observer of the case. But I was one of only a handful of people who were present for the 2 days of the trial, and can add some important detail to that put out in the newspapers."
He then says in court, it was revealed that one witness (called Mr H in the blog) came forward who was of the opinion the defendant (Hazeldean) was to blame:
"The Claimant relied on Mr H as her only witness on the issue of liability. Mr H attended trial and was cross examined by the Defendant’s barrister.
"Mr H’s evidence included a voice memo that he had recorded on his mobile phone minutes after the accident in order to provide a more detailed account than that recorded by the police. His witness statement expanded upon his police statement. He described in Court that there was a ‘throng’ of pedestrians 5 or 6 deep crossing the road, and estimated that there were 50 people in this group. He described that he slowed his bicycle because he felt that it was unsafe to proceed with people still crossing.
"Mr H said that he was overtaken by the Defendant, who was travelling at around 20mph and had sounded his airhorn. Mr H considered that the Defendant accelerated as he approached the crossing. He saw the Defendant collide with the Claimant who was crossing the road. He remained of the view that the Defendant was to blame."
Moloney summarises: "There was more to this decision than the many of the newspaper articles conveyed.
"Based on the judge’s finding that the Claimant was using her mobile phone, it was absolutely correct that she was found to have significantly contributed to the accident. However, the Defendant himself had conceded that he had accelerated towards a crossing which wasn’t clear of people.
"If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury."
The case has garnered a significant amount of media attention, and a crowdfunder to help pay for Hazeldean's legal fees has now reached over £55,000. The page creator and Hazeldean have said any money left over will be donated to the Action Aid charity.
Add new comment
37 comments
"If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury."
So, 'wider good', in this instance, equates to people having to spend more money to protect themselves from inscrupulous ambulance-chasers just about to embark on a mass campaign of 'have YOU been injured by a cyclist whilst stepping out into the road oblivious of your surroundings?' phone calls and telly adverts?
What a weapons-grade cunt
That is a poor view of an everyday situation and unwarranted abuse.
Do you really believe that someone who causes personal injury and or damage to someone else's property should just be able to shrug their shoulders, say "sorry mate" and walk away?
Here in Germany, personal liability insurance is a policy everybody should have. You don't have to have it, but then you are taking the risk of facing serious compensation claims. Health insurance is not "free" here but insurance based. If you were to injure someone (e.g. accidently knock someone over in the street) the injured persons health insurer could pass on their costs to you. The situation could easily be much worse. If the injured party was self employed and could not work for a while (weeks, maybe months) you would automatically be liable for their loss of earnings.
I reckon it is the insurance company's job to combat abuse. They will most likely not cover gross negligence i.e. if you rode through a red light and hit someone. They keep a close eye on attempts to inflate or make false claims.
Double posted
To be wee bit devil's advocate here.
If a car had overtaken another car which had already slowed for a signposted club run & the overtaking driver had then accelerated (by their own admission) towards them sounding their horn ('hello I'm here' or 'you'd better make me a gap I'm coming through regardless'? ) and ploughed into one rider that was having a chat and not 100% in the zone, I don't think the wider cycling community would be quite so quiet nor chipping into the drivers poor me fund.
From that account, it seems that the cyclist didn't attempt to slow down. I'd recommend always attempting to slow down to avoid accidents and then you shouldn't need legal insurance (though probably wise to have just in case).
Good of the claimant's barrister to post some more information on line. I wonder if the time taken to do that will form part of the justification of the c. £100k? legal costs being claimed?
It seems odd how witness Mr H's statement seems on the face of it to be so different from the other witness statements and from the defendant's statement.
The defendant said he didn't do a counter claim because he didn't agree with the US-style litigation culture. Given that the barrister's main take-away from the case is "you need to get insurance in case something like this happens to you", I suspect that that particular horse has already left the stable and is heading for open country
Pages