"Cycling and the Law" - IMGG - October 2016

Editor's Notes

• #4: The starting point is the Duty of Care. We all owe a duty of care to other road users and that is a common law duty to exercise reasonable care and not to expose others to harm by our actions. When considering a claim for compensation, you need to establish that a duty of care is owed, there has been a breach of that duty of care AND, as a result, a person has been injured. The important point is negligence. Negligence is established based upon the concept of balance of probability. Importantly, presumed liability does not do away with the concept of negligence. For a vulnerable road user to be compensated, there has to be a negligent act which resulted in the collision.   Many argue that compensation is wrong and out of control. Some even suggest we have a “compensation culture” yet as Sheriff Principal James Taylor stated in his Review Of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland, “there is a different culture in Scotland“ and there is no evidence of a “compensation culture “ in Scotland.   The whole purpose behind an award of compensation is an attempt to put an injured individual back into the position they would have been in but for the accident.
• #5: One of the most remarkable achievements of Roman Jurisprudence was the development of the concept of fault or culpability. More importantly the concept of no fault liability. A person would be held liable, not for the failure to display the diligence of a reasonable person but because they are in control of a potential source of danger to other people’s lives, health and property.
• #6: Move forward a few centuries and we had the Industrial Revolution. The Concept of Harm remains. It is just and reasonable that if a person uses a dangerous machine, he should pay for the damage it occasions.”
• #7: This was a similar lamppost destruction by the Omnibus but this time a passenger on the bus was injured. However, no evidence was presented that the bus was a nuisance and the Courts found no negligence on the part of the driver. No negligence = No Liability. This is where the U-turn occurred.
• #8: So, what were our European neighbours doing at this time?
• #9: From our research, we have established that no country in the world has achieved both high levels of walking and cycling and low casualty levels without presumed liability. Can anyone at Transport Scotland seriously state that there is any evidence that Scotland will achieve the desired increase in safe active travel without presumed liability when our research proves otherwise. It is not a coincidence that the countries in Europe with presumed or strict liability have a far better culture of road share.
• #10: In our fault based system for road traffic civil liability, it is the individual who bears the burden of proof. It is the individual who must establish the fault or negligence. In so doing, it is the individual who takes on the might of the insurance industry. Claims for compensation are made against insurance companies and not drivers. Drivers must pay for compulsory third party insurance. If a driver causes a collision and another is injured, his or her insurance company will pay any third party claim. Our present fault based system ignores the concept of harm and who brings most harm to a road traffic collision. As Lord Denning stated, “to require the individual to prove fault results in the gravest injustice”. Presumed liability is about recognising who is most able to bear the burden of proof. Is it the individual in our current fault system or should it be the large insurer in a presumed liability system?
• #11: In our fault based system for road traffic civil liability, it is the individual who bears the burden of proof. It is the individual who must establish the fault or negligence. In so doing, it is the individual who takes on the might of the insurance industry. Claims for compensation are made against insurance companies and not drivers. Drivers must pay for compulsory third party insurance. If a driver causes a collision and another is injured, his or her insurance company will pay any third party claim. Our present fault based system ignores the concept of harm and who brings most harm to a road traffic collision. As Lord Denning stated, “to require the individual to prove fault results in the gravest injustice”. Presumed liability is about recognising who is most able to bear the burden of proof. Is it the individual in our current fault system or should it be the large insurer in a presumed liability system?
• #14: There is no automatic entitlement to compensation under presumed liability. Presumed liability is about transferring the burden of proof in recognition of who brings most harm. However, Road Share proposes to protect the children (<14), elderly (>70) and the disabled. They should be compensated without having to prove fault.
• #15: Mark Lonnen was injured when a car driver opened his door into his path. Despite the straight forward circumstances, the driver’s insurance company would not compensate Mark. An action had to be raised in court and it took 12 months for Mark to receive compensation.   Jamie Aarons was injured in a similar fashion to Mark Lonnen. On this occasion, a taxi driver opened his door into her path. He later denied liability. His insurance company maintained they had 6 witnesses that would prove that Jamie had cycled into an open door. Proceedings were raised in Court and the case settled 11 months after the incident.    These cases demonstrate that our fault based system is failing the individual and the bereaved. Cases that should be settled quickly and fairly are ending up in Court. When a case goes to Court, the losing side has to pay the Court costs. Presumed liability will result in more cases being settled without resort to expensive litigation which is what the Association of British Insurers want.
• #18: Sally Low was killed following a collision with a car. She was on her own carriageway. An independent witness confirmed she had done nothing wrong. Despite that, the car driver’s insurance company would not compensate her family and it took 18 months for her 2 teenage sons and other family members to recover much needed compensation. Sally was a single mother and therefore the sole bread winner.   Mark Lonnen was injured when a car driver opened his door into his path. Despite the straight forward circumstances, the driver’s insurance company would not compensate Mark. An action had to be raised in court and it took 12 months for Mark to receive compensation.   Alex Gibson was injured when a mini-bus overtook him. The driver did not leave sufficient room. The driver’s insurance company denied liability. Proceedings were raised in Court and it took 18 months for Alex to recover his award of compensation.   Jamie Aarons was injured in a similar fashion to Mark Lonnen. On this occasion, a taxi driver opened his door into her path. He later denied liability. His insurance company maintained they had 6 witnesses that would prove that Jamie had cycled into an open door. Proceedings were raised in Court and the case settled 11 months after the incident.   Consider the case of Lesley Jackson, a 13 year old schoolgirl who was seriously injured when she alighted a school mini-bus and attempted to cross the road but was hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. It took 10 years for the Court case to be decided by The Supreme Court after two appeals.   All these cases demonstrate that our fault based system is failing the individual and the bereaved. Cases that should be settled quickly and fairly are ending up in Court. When a case goes to Court, the losing side has to pay the Court costs. Presumed liability will result in more cases being settled without resort to expensive litigation which is what the Association of British Insurers want.
• #19: Sally Low was killed following a collision with a car. She was on her own carriageway. An independent witness confirmed she had done nothing wrong. Despite that, the car driver’s insurance company would not compensate her family and it took 18 months for her 2 teenage sons and other family members to recover much needed compensation. Sally was a single mother and therefore the sole bread winner.   Mark Lonnen was injured when a car driver opened his door into his path. Despite the straight forward circumstances, the driver’s insurance company would not compensate Mark. An action had to be raised in court and it took 12 months for Mark to receive compensation.   Alex Gibson was injured when a mini-bus overtook him. The driver did not leave sufficient room. The driver’s insurance company denied liability. Proceedings were raised in Court and it took 18 months for Alex to recover his award of compensation.   Jamie Aarons was injured in a similar fashion to Mark Lonnen. On this occasion, a taxi driver opened his door into her path. He later denied liability. His insurance company maintained they had 6 witnesses that would prove that Jamie had cycled into an open door. Proceedings were raised in Court and the case settled 11 months after the incident.   Consider the case of Lesley Jackson, a 13 year old schoolgirl who was seriously injured when she alighted a school mini-bus and attempted to cross the road but was hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. It took 10 years for the Court case to be decided by The Supreme Court after two appeals.   All these cases demonstrate that our fault based system is failing the individual and the bereaved. Cases that should be settled quickly and fairly are ending up in Court. When a case goes to Court, the losing side has to pay the Court costs. Presumed liability will result in more cases being settled without resort to expensive litigation which is what the Association of British Insurers want.
• #20: There is no automatic entitlement to compensation under presumed liability. Presumed liability is about transferring the burden of proof in recognition of who brings most harm. However, Road Share proposes to protect the children (<14), elderly (>70) and the disabled. They should be compensated without having to prove fault.
• #21: From our research, we have established that no country in the world has achieved both high levels of walking and cycling and low casualty levels without presumed liability. Can anyone at Transport Scotland seriously state that there is any evidence that Scotland will achieve the desired increase in safe active travel without presumed liability when our research proves otherwise. It is not a coincidence that the countries in Europe with presumed or strict liability have a far better culture of road share.
• #32: There is no automatic entitlement to compensation under presumed liability. Presumed liability is about transferring the burden of proof in recognition of who brings most harm. However, Road Share proposes to protect the children (<14), elderly (>70) and the disabled. They should be compensated without having to prove fault.
• #33: From our research, we have established that no country in the world has achieved both high levels of walking and cycling and low casualty levels without presumed liability. Can anyone at Transport Scotland seriously state that there is any evidence that Scotland will achieve the desired increase in safe active travel without presumed liability when our research proves otherwise. It is not a coincidence that the countries in Europe with presumed or strict liability have a far better culture of road share.