Bicycle Accident Claims And The Duty To Take Reasonable Care For One's Own Safety
All road users have a duty of care not to cause harm or damage to others or to another person's property. The duty of care that is owed by a cyclist is no different to that owed by a vehicle driver or motorcyclist, except that because more harm and damage can be caused by a driver of a motor vehicle than would a motorbike or bicycle, there is a higher degree of care required.
The question of whether there is a breach of duty of care is measured by the standards of a "reasonably careful" driver or motorcyclist or cyclist, whichever the case may be. However, it should also be noted that a cyclist, as with any other user of the road, has a duty of care to himself. So if a cyclist has an accident that is entirely due to his own carelessness, the cyclist will have no grounds for a claim.
Let's take the hypothetical case of a bicycle accident caused when a cyclist is knocked off his bike when a driver of a car parked on the side of the road, suddenly opens his door. The cyclist is knocked off his bike into the path of a car moving in the same direction as the cyclist. The cyclist sustains serious injury.
Lets also assume that shortly before the accident, the cyclist noticed that the driver's door was slightly ajar. Or perhaps instead of a parked car the cyclist is moving towards a taxi that had just pulled over to the side of the road.
The known risks to a reasonably careful cyclist is that to pull out further into the road puts him at an increased risk of being hit by a vehicle as the road in question is very busy. Alternatively, if he continues on his path without shifting his position on the road, it's possible that unless he positions himself far enough out into the road, he may be struck by a vehicle door if it is opened.
The cyclist has a duty of care for his own safety and respond appropriately. The driver of the parked vehicle has a duty to ensure that it is safe to open his door as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to take care in so doing may cause injury or damage to property.
In either scenario, the issue of whether the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the accident is without doubt. However, what is often a more challenging legal issue is whether the cyclist was at all partly responsible for his own accident? This is often an issue that arises in many road traffic accident i.e. whether there was contributory negligence by the innocent party?
This was an issue that was addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mr Burridge, a former premiership goal keeper.
It was accepted that the Claimant could have foreseen that the door would open and in our example, the door was slightly ajar. It could and indeed was argued that the Claimant cyclist could have taken evasive action to avoid collision with the door. However, in doing so it was accepted in evidence that the evasive action required putting himself into more danger by moving further into the road. It was further accepted by the judge that stopping his bicycle was not "practical bicycling" and in any event it is not practical for a cyclist to have to keep stopping his bicycle every time he feared that a car door might be opened.
Clearly, cyclist ought not to cycle too close to parked vehicles as it is reasonably foreseeable that a car door might be opened suddenly. However, this must be judged in the context of the road conditions at the time. In our case, as it was in the Mr Burridge case, traffic was fast-moving and quite heavy. It would have been dangerous for a cyclist to venture to far out into the road.
The conclusion of the Court of Appeal is that:
1. Cyclists should foresee that the doors of parked vehicles may open as they are passing;
2. They have a duty to take care for their own safety;
3. In looking at contributory fault, a balance must be struck between the risk of putting the cyclist into further danger by moving further out into the road;
4. There is no suggestion that the there is a need for cyclists to actually stop their bicycles.
On the facts of this particular case, the Court of Appeal found in favour for the Claimant and dismissed the appeal of contributory fault argued by the Defendant.
And finally, on a slightly different note, if you have legal insurance cover, whether its part of your car insurance or some other policy of insurance, be aware that you are not legally obliged to go with your insurer's choice of solicitor who they select from their panel of solicitors. In any type of accident claim it's important that you get the help and advice that you need from a specialist in the area of law that is particular to your injury complaint.
The question of whether there is a breach of duty of care is measured by the standards of a "reasonably careful" driver or motorcyclist or cyclist, whichever the case may be. However, it should also be noted that a cyclist, as with any other user of the road, has a duty of care to himself. So if a cyclist has an accident that is entirely due to his own carelessness, the cyclist will have no grounds for a claim.
Let's take the hypothetical case of a bicycle accident caused when a cyclist is knocked off his bike when a driver of a car parked on the side of the road, suddenly opens his door. The cyclist is knocked off his bike into the path of a car moving in the same direction as the cyclist. The cyclist sustains serious injury.
Lets also assume that shortly before the accident, the cyclist noticed that the driver's door was slightly ajar. Or perhaps instead of a parked car the cyclist is moving towards a taxi that had just pulled over to the side of the road.
The known risks to a reasonably careful cyclist is that to pull out further into the road puts him at an increased risk of being hit by a vehicle as the road in question is very busy. Alternatively, if he continues on his path without shifting his position on the road, it's possible that unless he positions himself far enough out into the road, he may be struck by a vehicle door if it is opened.
The cyclist has a duty of care for his own safety and respond appropriately. The driver of the parked vehicle has a duty to ensure that it is safe to open his door as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to take care in so doing may cause injury or damage to property.
In either scenario, the issue of whether the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the accident is without doubt. However, what is often a more challenging legal issue is whether the cyclist was at all partly responsible for his own accident? This is often an issue that arises in many road traffic accident i.e. whether there was contributory negligence by the innocent party?
This was an issue that was addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mr Burridge, a former premiership goal keeper.
It was accepted that the Claimant could have foreseen that the door would open and in our example, the door was slightly ajar. It could and indeed was argued that the Claimant cyclist could have taken evasive action to avoid collision with the door. However, in doing so it was accepted in evidence that the evasive action required putting himself into more danger by moving further into the road. It was further accepted by the judge that stopping his bicycle was not "practical bicycling" and in any event it is not practical for a cyclist to have to keep stopping his bicycle every time he feared that a car door might be opened.
Clearly, cyclist ought not to cycle too close to parked vehicles as it is reasonably foreseeable that a car door might be opened suddenly. However, this must be judged in the context of the road conditions at the time. In our case, as it was in the Mr Burridge case, traffic was fast-moving and quite heavy. It would have been dangerous for a cyclist to venture to far out into the road.
The conclusion of the Court of Appeal is that:
1. Cyclists should foresee that the doors of parked vehicles may open as they are passing;
2. They have a duty to take care for their own safety;
3. In looking at contributory fault, a balance must be struck between the risk of putting the cyclist into further danger by moving further out into the road;
4. There is no suggestion that the there is a need for cyclists to actually stop their bicycles.
On the facts of this particular case, the Court of Appeal found in favour for the Claimant and dismissed the appeal of contributory fault argued by the Defendant.
And finally, on a slightly different note, if you have legal insurance cover, whether its part of your car insurance or some other policy of insurance, be aware that you are not legally obliged to go with your insurer's choice of solicitor who they select from their panel of solicitors. In any type of accident claim it's important that you get the help and advice that you need from a specialist in the area of law that is particular to your injury complaint.
Comments
Post a Comment