The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, and though he checked to his left did not see the claimant, but said the cyclist must have come straight out across the entrance. He now appealed a afinding that he was 100% responsible.
Held: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the claimant was found to be 40% responsibe.
Smith J discussed the factors arising because the claimant had been a cyclist on the footpath: ‘It seems to me that the fact that the Claimant was cycling had a bearing on this accident, firstly, because the front wheel of the bicycle, which is the first object which is liable to be hit in a collision of this sort, projects some two or three feet in front of somebody who is standing, as the Claimant was, astride the bicycle and if the bicycle is hit then, as happened here, the Claimant is liable to be knocked over and injured. So it makes him more vulnerable than a pedestrian.
Secondly, it seems to me that it had a bearing in this case because when the Claimant saw that the accident was likely to happen he tried to dismount from his bicycle by getting his other leg over the crossbar to get out of the way, but not surprisingly he was not able to do that. Standing astride his cycle he inhibited himself from getting out of the way, he also inhibited himself from moving the cycle back out of the path of the collision. Therefore in my view, although it was not the primary cause of this accident, it seems to me that the Claimant was himself at fault in two respects: in putting himself further into the road than was necessary from the point of view of ensuring that it was safe to cross, and in making himself more vulnerable in the two respects that I have described.
I think the Recorder was wrong to acquit him of all blame in this accident, nevertheless I think that the greater proportion of the blame should attach to the Defendant. After all a pedestrian or a cyclist is more vulnerable than somebody in a motorcar. If the Defendant had, as he ought to have done, anticipated that pedestrians might have been crossing here and might have been taking less care of themselves than they should have been, he would have looked sufficiently carefully, in my judgment, to see that it was safe to proceed.
Judges:
Dyson LJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 82
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (Epn) Plc and Others QBD 15-Jun-2010
The claimant cyclist sought damages for severe personal injury. He was walking or riding his cycle through some roadworks by the roadside, and fell out through roadside barriers into the path of a car. The defendants admitted that the path was less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217941
