The claimant had been very severely injured when knocked from his cycle by the defendant’s car. He had come out onto the roadway at night but without cycle lights, and into the path of the car. The claimant was not wearing a helmet.
Held: Smith v Finch was applied to say that a cyclist not wearing a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his injuries: ‘the literature establishes that cycle helmets are generally beneficial in head injury cases. It is clear that a properly designed helmet worn by a cyclist at speeds of up to 12mph who falls 1.5 metres and hits his head on the pavement is afforded a high level of protection . . the potential benefit of helmets is not limited simply to cases of mild injury but may include cases of severe head injury’ The claimant’s damages should be reduced by one third.
Judges:
Wilcox J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 363 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Froom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
Cited – Smith v Finch QBD 22-Jan-2009
The claimant cyclist was severely injured in an accident when hit by a motorcyclist, the defendant. He was not wearing a cycle helmet, and the injuries were to his head. He was slowing down to turn right, and was hit a heavy glancing blow by the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Phethean-Hubble v Coles CA 21-Mar-2012
The claimant cyclist suffered serious injury in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. The defendant appealed against a finding that he was two thirds responsible. The case for the injured cyclist was that the motorist was going too fast. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic, Damages
Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.430055
