Cyclist who knocked over woman on phone must pay up to £100,000

Man claims case, in which both were found equally to blame, may set
alarming precedent

Matthew Weaver and agencies
Fri 21 Jun 2019 12.39 BST

A cyclist who knocked over a woman who was looking at her mobile phone
while crossing a road has been ordered to pay about £100,000 in
compensation and costs in a case he claims could set an alarming precedent.

Both the cyclist, Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer, and the pedestrian,
Gemma Brushett, who works in finance, were left unconscious after the
rush-hour collision in July 2015.

The judge, Shanti Mauger, said both were equally to blame for the incident
on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a
payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not.

Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages
after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her
“very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal
costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.

Sitting in Central London county court, Mauger said: “Ms Brushett and Mr
Hazeldean were equally culpable in this accident and Mr Hazeldean, for
whatever reason, hasn’t made a claim and so only Ms Brushett is getting a
payout.”

The court heard Brushett was one of a “throng” of people trying to cross
the road at the start of the evening rush hour. She was looking at her
mobile phone when crossing the road while the lights were green for
traffic, and only noticed Hazeldean approaching at the last moment.

The judge said Hazeldean was “a calm and reasonable road user” but was
still liable to pay damages, adding: “Cyclists must be prepared at all
times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”

Hazeldean, who now works in France, said he was “reeling” from a verdict
that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course
deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that
it might set for other cyclists.

“I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability
of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help
reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users
disproportionately exposed.”

Hazeldean said he realised he should have put in a counter-claim at the
start of case but was reluctant to do so because he disliked the “claim
culture”. He added: “Had I had legal representation at the time of
preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”

Hazeldean’s lawyers, Levi Solicitors, called for an urgent change in the
law to protect cyclists from expensive payouts.

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london>

--
Spike

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> Cyclist who knocked over woman on phone must pay up to £100,000

> Man claims case, in which both were found equally to blame, may set
> alarming precedent

Whatever is he talking about?

He gets sued, decides not to counter-sue, loses, and get a stuffed for
costs.

Where’s the ‘alarming precedent’?

[op cit]

--
Spike

QUOTE:
Brushett [the pedestrian victim of a chav-cyclist], who also runs a yoga
retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a
8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive”
appearance, but Hazeldean [the chav-cyclist who had caused her injuries]
was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to
be as much as £100,000.
ENDQUOTE

If the chav-on-the-bike had "fessed up early doors" and not fought the
case, he'd only have had to pay £4,161.79 (or perhaps a little more).

The other £95,000 or so he brought upon himself, the silly little sausage.