Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclist settles claim with county council out of court

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I am outraged! These manhole covers clearly think they own the road! Why aren't they painted a bright hi viz colour?

    The obvious answer is a license and tax of some sort. That'll stop this "recessed" business once and for all! ;)

    Haha good one, you sound like a true motorist.

    (in my best cyclist voice)
    It is the responsibility of the road user to be going slow enough to see these manholes and be aware of their surroundings at all times. If they cant see these manholes they dont deserve to be on the road! ;)


  • Options
    #33
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I know someone who had a fall in similar accidents to this lad, but it was in broad daylight, was wearing a helmet, and wasn't going at any substantial speed. He meets all your criteria for avoiding such an accident, and yet he too ended up in hospital.

    That's terrible but what has it do with how the Defendant here drafted his/her defence?

    Civil courts case are about winning arguments/optics/lots of bullsh1t.

    Most people, including most judges in all likelihood, think helmets are a good idea. A barrister not hamming that up along with hurley light etc is not doing his job. His job is not the pursuit of justice but saving his client money.

    Walk into a court for a day, it'll knock that Matlock/ A few Good men ideas out of your head.

    The Plaintiff would have a hard job in all probability have a difficulty persuading his own lawyers than a helmet mightn't have done much good.

    The judge doesn't live, like most people, in the bubble of this subforum.


  • Options
    #34
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,940 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    And to think, looking at google maps, that is one of the best cycle paths around, compared to the N11 it looks damn near perfection. I have had the N11 take me out of it a few times, hidden dips, manhole covers on bends, that weird red sh1t that removes all grip from the road.


  • Options
    #35
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on ten to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

    I am not sure it is. Their insurers will be to some extent involved in the decisions whether to defend the case. However a very large number get settled out of court as much to save legal expenses.

    It's no different from a pedestrian who falls in similar circumstances, who then makes a claim. Some such claims have gone to court, but that never forces any authority to change it's approach to repairs. They basically know they will face claims and can estimate the approximate level and compare it to the costs of repairs. It essentially becomes a budgeting exercise, particularly when there are many different things competing for funding.


  • Options
    #36
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Is this not more about the council settling to avoid the risk of an unfavourable out in that would make it legally binding on them to either repair all the damaged road or face a load of other claims. In other words , avoid a precedent being set?

    Seems reasonable. Personally while I've no issue with the state supporting someone who needs care following an accident like this, I'd hate to see Ireland moving any way further towards a compo culture. We have a huge network of rural roads, many of which contain potholes that would send you flying were you to hit them, but don't have the funds to keep all of them pothole free all of the time, particularly in agricultural areas with heavy machinery. I'd rather see money from the public purse spent on maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure than pi$$ed away in court on legal fees and awards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Yes we have roads to rival the infamous cobbled Forest of Arenberg


  • Options
    #38
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Haha good one, you sound like a true motorist.

    (in my best cyclist voice)
    It is the responsibility of the road user to be going slow enough to see these manholes and be aware of their surroundings at all times. If they cant see these manholes they dont deserve to be on the road! ;)

    You see plenty of threads in the motors forum from drivers who had damaged their cars from poor roads. Would the same apply to them?


  • Options
    #39
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Most people, including most judges in all likelihood, think helmets are a good idea. A barrister not hamming that up along with hurley light etc is not doing his job. His job is not the pursuit of justice but saving his client money.

    Walk into a court for a day, it'll knock that Matlock/ A few Good men ideas out of your head.

    I understand the first point you're trying to make, it's just that you can't handle the truth, jackass! (it's a Matlock quote before I get carded!)

    What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.


  • Options
    #40
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RayCun wrote: »
    And obviously the council is going to mention it, just like they'd mention that a motorist had had a drink, even if they were under the limit, or a pedestrian was wearing heels and on the phone when they fell, even though both are legal
    Ah yes, but generally these are all used as reasons as to why the incident occurred in the first place. Like with the hurley, you can argue that he didn't have proper control of the bike, but not wearing a helmet doesn't make you more likely to crash.

    This is why it's a silly argument. And in many ways bringing up the "not wearing a helmet" argument could be seen as an admission that the council is at fault for the incident, they're just disputing the level of their liability.


  • Options
    #41
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.

    True, but by his own admission he was cycling home in the dark without a light when he hit something. Cycling in the dark without a light is surely negligent, and while he probably hit a pothole, it is far from conclusive. Be interesting to know what level of street lighting was present, one would assume some but not enough to safely negotiate a poorly surfaced road.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    I understand the first point you're trying to make, it's just that you can't handle the truth, jackass! (it's a Matlock quote before I get carded!)

    What I'm saying is that as there's no requirement to wear a helmet, nor can they prove what speed he's at, it's not a great defence by the council. I'm fully aware they were trying to get some contributory negligence assigned to the lad, but a good judge would be take into account the 2 points I've made.

    The onus of proof is on the Plaintiff that his speed was appropriate to riding his bike in the dark with no light. Again what speed do you say that is?

    Along with not keeping a proper lookout they had to include excessive speed; they can't make up new particulars when case is at hearing that they haven't already pleaded.

    The helmet helps to muddy the waters and helps paint a picture of a youth with no regard for his own safety; cycling with no light does that for me.

    As an aside the opening line of every defence I've seen starts with "It's denied the accident happened as alleged or at all". In lots of cases where it's clearly bo11ox and effectively agreed bo11ox between the parties.

    Lawyers are advocates for their client. There was no downside to throwing the helmet comment in only upside or neutral.

    The key issue here was the light, and maybe hurley, the rest is optics. I'd bet it would influence most judges not to mention the one rabidly anti cycling one I've met


  • Options
    #43
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    The helmet obviously wouldn't have prevented the accident, but they would argue, or imply, that his injuries would have been less severe if he'd worn one. So maybe he is partially responsible for the extent of the damage therefore due less compensation.

    And, without opening the can of worms, that's not a bad argument when it comes to a brain injury.


  • Options
    #44
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ford2600 wrote: »
    The key issue here was the light, and maybe hurley, the rest is optics. I'd bet it would influence most judges not to mention the one rabidly anti cycling one I've met

    Never been involved in a civil case, but I was recently working as an expert witness on a criminal case. The one thing that struck me was that the presentation of evidence seemed every bit as important as the evidence itself, and as a result the outcome was more arbitrary than I would've expected. I wouldn't be surprised that in the case the council took the safer known option rather than an unknown one which was possibly much better for them.


  • Options
    #45
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    smacl wrote: »
    True, but by his own admission he was cycling home in the dark without a light when he hit something. Cycling in the dark without a light is surely negligent, and while he probably hit a pothole, it is far from conclusive. Be interesting to know what level of street lighting was present, one would assume some but not enough to safely negotiate a poorly surfaced road.

    Truth be known, his hurl could have fallen in front of his wheel causing him to fall off his bike.


  • Options
    #46
    Billy Reid
    Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Billy Reid


    Why did it take so long to settle?


  • Options
    #47
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Billy Reid wrote: »
    Why did it take so long to settle?

    No experience of the Irish legal system then? ;)


  • Options
    #48
    Johnny Jukebox
    Registered Users Posts: 658 ✭✭✭Johnny Jukebox


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Truth be known, his hurl could have fallen in front of his wheel causing him to fall off his bike.

    This. If I was the opposing counsel I'd be arguing long and hard to raise the possibility of the hurley going into the spokes of the front wheel....

    Likewise if I was the plaintiff, there'd be no mention of any hurley....


Advertisement