Nobody Cares: PRS

[Innula Zenovka]

Ah well who knows, maybe he assumed that a court would treat them both fairly. For a judge to sit there and say that both are equally liable and then to decide to bankrupt one of them because he didnt have legal representation is hardly any shade of fair.

As for the various ways he could make the costs go away, do please share your wisdom on this as who knows, maybe there's something there I can use. I doubt he would have gotten legal aid.

Assuming he doesn't have his own insurance (because whatever reasons) and he consults a solicitor, the first thing that happens is the solicitor considers the facts as the cyclist presents them and considers what sort of case both he and the pedestrian have.

Assuming he reaches the same conclusion as did the judge, then he would probably have advised the cyclist to settle out of court, making an offer that reflects the damages suffered by the pedestrian but reduced by whatever percentage to reflect the fact that she was partly to blame through her inattention.

Alternatively, if the cyclist wants to fight the case, the next step would be to consider whether he as a realistic chance of success, then the next stage would be to try to do that through mediation, which greatly reduces everyone's costs.

If the cyclist still wants to fight it (and at this point he's looking increasingly unreasonable) then the next step would be to try to arrange insurance to indemnify him against legal costs -- I have no idea what the premiums are like for that, although they won't be as much the fees, obviously -- though this really is pretty much a last resort.

If he can't find anyone to insure him then, if he still hasn't got the message, then put in an offer of an out-of-court settlement for roughly what the other side is claiming * 0.5 to reflect the fact she's partly to blame.

That should concentrate the other sides's minds a bit since even if he loses, assuming the court awards the same compensation as he offered, or less, then each side has to find its own costs.

Any of those options is going to leave him out of pocket, certainly, but there's no getting round that because we know he's at least at part to blame for the accident.

However, any of them would have been far, far cheaper than going to court over it, which is almost always the worst option -- the whole point about civil law is that it's supposed to be no more than the default position if two parties in a dispute can't agree a mutually satisfactory settlement between themselves.

The whole process is predicated on the assumption that no one actually wants to sue or be sued in a civil court unless there's absolutely no alternative, but if someone refuses to avail himself of any of the options other than court, then that's his decision and, to my mind, he owns the consequences.

ETA: Paying for your case: Financing Civil Litigation - InBrief.co.uk

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Stora]

Robert Hazeldean: Thousands raised for cyclist's legal bill

More than £50,000 has been raised for a cyclist who was ordered to pay compensation to a woman who stepped in front of him while using her phone.

Both Robert Hazeldean and 28-year-old yoga instructor Gemma Brushett were knocked unconscious in a collision near London Bridge in July 2015.

A judge found they were "equally culpable" for what happened.

Mr Hazeldean was ordered to pay over £4,000 in damages but he fears his total legal bill could reach £100,000.

The garden designer was legally unrepresented during the initial stages of the case and failed to launch a counterclaim, which would have reduced his financial bill.

Thousands raised for cyclist's legal bill

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Comment on an article in the CBC.

Revealing about the poster.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Robert Hazeldean: Thousands raised for cyclist's legal bill



Thousands raised for cyclist's legal bill

From the Independent's coverage:

Roger Geffen, Cycling UK's policy director, said the latest case was a reminder that cyclists needed to be covered by third party insurance.

“Based on our reading of the media reports, it seems odd that the judge attributed responsibility on a 50/50 basis given their own reported comments on the case," he said.

"However this case highlights why Cycling UK gives all our members third party insurance, and recommends regular cyclists take out similar policies to protect themselves from this sort of situation."

How did a law-abiding cyclist end up with a huge legal bill after a pedestrian walked out in front of him?

Robert Hazeldean collided with pedestrian Gemma Brushett as she stepped out into road while using her phone – but now he is facing a huge compensation and legal bill

www.independent.co.uk

Can anyone explain to me, please, what is unreasonable about expecting cyclists to insure themselves against any damages their activities might cause?

 

[Arkady Arkright]

Can anyone explain to me, please, what is unreasonable about expecting cyclists to insure themselves against any damages their activities might cause?

When you explain to me why someone who walks out in front of traffic because they're so involved with their phone shouldn't have to pay their own share of the legal bill - judge "you are 50% responsible for the issue, but the other party can foot the whole legal bill" ?

 

[Ashiri]

Since we are still on this topic, in NZ we have a national insurance system for accident compensation. Still need insurance for motor vehicles to cover property damage liability.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

When you explain to me why someone who walks out in front of traffic because they're so involved with their phone shouldn't have to pay their own share of the legal bill - judge "you are 50% responsible for the issue, but the other party can foot the whole legal bill" ?

Simple. She sued for damages, and she succeeded because he was at fault for not being prepared to stop (just as a motorist would be at fault for running into a pedestrian or cyclist under similar circumstances). However, because her negligence contributed to the accident (didn't cause it) the judge cut the damages by 50%.

Generally, in civil cases, the losing side has to pay both sides' costs. He lost, so he has to pay both sides' costs, though not as much in damages as he might otherwise have had to pay.

That's why.

Had he consulted a solicitor when first he was notified of the action, or had he even consulted the local Citizens' Advice Bureau, he would doubtless have been advised whether he could counter-sue (probably he could have, but I don't know the facts) and, regardless of whether he wanted to counter-sue I would have hoped he would also have been advised to settle out of court if at all possible (because lawyers' fees) or, if they couldn't agree on a settlement, then use a binding arbitration service (far, far cheaper).

Had he then still been set on going to court, then doubtless the solicitor would have explained the risks to him and also advised him to explore the option of insuring against costs.

And, of course, as I keep on mentioning (because it is true), when I had to renew my standard household contents cover, I paid £30 for an optional add-on that covers stuff like the central heating boiler breaking down, me losing my keys and having to call out an emergency locksmith and my legal costs and damages (up to quite a generous limit) if I find myself sued, so for me, as for a lot of people, it's a non-issue.

That's why he's ended up in this predicament -- basically, because you've got to try really hard to screw things up for yourself as badly as did he.

There. I've explained things.

Your turn to explain why he shouldn't have carry third-party insurance to use his bike on the public highway.

 

[Arkady Arkright]

Generally, in civil cases, the losing side has to pay both sides' costs. He lost, so he has to pay both sides' costs, though not as much in damages as he might otherwise have had to pay.

If they were 50:50 to blame, they should be 50:50 liable to the costs, that's 'natural' justice.

I don't say he shouldn't have to pay anything, but he shouldn't have to pay it all - and neither should his insurance company, had he had one..

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If they were 50:50 to blame, they should be 50:50 liable to the costs, that's 'natural' justice.

I don't say he shouldn't have to pay anything, but he shouldn't have to pay it all - and neither should his insurance company, had he had one..

That's not what the law says, though.

Furthermore, as I tried to argue, while the accident may have been partly her fault, the fact that the costs were run up the way there were was entirely down to him.

He could so easily have at least mitigated them and probably avoided them all together, and he had several chances. On the facts as we know them, there's nothing she could have done to help him there other than not suing in the first place.

Come on ... I think you've mentioned before you have adult children. Imagine your reaction if one of them said he'd been involved in similar accident and received this threatening letter from her solicitors, but he wasn't going to bother to waste time consulting a solicitor himself or anything like that ....

What would your reaction be then?

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

June 25:

Michael Jackson dies.
Anthony Bourdain born.
Purple Rain released.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Ugh. There's some group calling themselves One Nation America that has been blitzing television viewers in my area with a scare ad about Medicare for All, basically claiming that the citizens of every nation that has implemented such a health care system end up waiting exorbitant lengths of time for medical treatment. If you're so inclined, you can see the ad on their website.

It's fucking disgusting the lengths these conservative groups will go to deny all Americans quality, affordable health care!

 

[Arkady Arkright]

That's not what the law says, though.

The law works for the rich and the legal profession, ordinary people are just its cannon-fodder.

Come on ... I think you've mentioned before you have adult children. Imagine your reaction if one of them said he'd been involved in similar accident and received this threatening letter from her solicitors, but he wasn't going to bother to waste time consulting a solicitor himself or anything like that ....

Solicitors often send letters out making threats that they have no intention of following-up, it's part of the gam - especially in no-win no-fee scams (I received some myself when I was having trouble with a property developer working on a building next to my home). If I'd responded the way you suggest to every letter I'd have been well out of pocket.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Anthony Bourdain born.

Who sadly also died 8th of June 2018.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Ugh. There's some group calling themselves One Nation America that has been blitzing television viewers in my area with a scare ad about Medicare for All, basically claiming that the citizens of every nation that has implemented such a health care system end up waiting exorbitant lengths of time for medical treatment. If you're so inclined, you can see the ad on their website.

It's fucking disgusting the lengths these conservative groups will go to deny all Americans quality, affordable health care!

I’d like to know who these people are who never have waits for a doctor. I had them back when I was on corporate insurance and I have the same waits now on government insurance because the doctors aren’t going to have a different schedule for your different insurance.

I can see where situations might exist where a doctor doesn’t take a particular insurance, but I think what’s happening is that people are comparing their experience on Medicare without a supplemental to their younger experience on corporate insurance when they were not experiencing chronic conditions. You simply have to get the supplemental if you’re on Medicare with a chronic condition. I don’t think these people understand how anything works.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The law works for the rich and the legal profession, ordinary people are just its cannon-fodder.



Solicitors often send letters out making threats that they have no intention of following-up, it's part of the gam - especially in no-win no-fee scams (I received some myself when I was having trouble with a property developer working on a building next to my home). If I'd responded the way you suggest to every letter I'd have been well out of pocket.

And did you not take any legal advice about any of these letters? In this case, he can't simply have received one or two letters. He'll have received a whole series, making it clearer and clearer that they were deadly serious about suing.

Are you seriously telling me that, in the event of your being involved in an accident that rendered both you and the woman you'd run into unconscious for a while (which I assume required hospital treatment, if only for observation) and you then received not just a letter saying she was intending to sue you but then a whole series of letters demonstrating she was, in fact, deadly serious, you wouldn't have consulted a solicitor or the local CAB?

All I can suggest, I think, is that you make sure your insurance is all well in order before leaving the house in future, since as we've just seen here, ignoring such correspondence can be quite pricey, too.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Hot damn, Reddit finally quarantined the_donald. Apparently they were making threats to kill police officers who have been sent to retrieve the Oregon runaway Senators (THAT is a whole other wtf story) as well as the head of DHS.

WTF is this Oregon story? 12 Senators leaving the state to deny climate change legislation from passing. To top it off at least one of them has said he would commit violence against the State Troopers sent to retrieve them. The 3%er militia has vowed to rush to their aid from both Oregon and Idaho.

WTF, WTF, WTF? These people were elected to do a job. They clearly don't want to do it. Jail them for the threats, then impeach them. Jail those 3%er's too. interesting how the pro-cop side (when they're killing young black men) now deem murdering cops perfectly fine.

Republicans are fecking nuts and they are incredibly dangerous to any form of democracy at this point.

Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’

Reddit ‘Quarantines’ Pro-Trump Forum Over Anti-Police Threats

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Whoops.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/the-birds-and-the-beads-creston-tweens-get-explicit-sex-education-1.5191274

An explicit sex guide describing fetishes and drug use was offered to preteens inside a B.C. classroom, prompting outrage from parents and an official apology from the school district.

 

[Govi]

Hot damn, Reddit finally quarantined the_donald. Apparently they were making threats to kill police officers who have been sent to retrieve the Oregon runaway Senators (THAT is a whole other wtf story) as well as the head of DHS.

WTF is this Oregon story? 12 Senators leaving the state to deny climate change legislation from passing. To top it off at least one of them has said he would commit violence against the State Troopers sent to retrieve them. The 3%er militia has vowed to rush to their aid from both Oregon and Idaho.

WTF, WTF, WTF? These people were elected to do a job. They clearly don't want to do it. Jail them for the threats, then impeach them. Jail those 3%er's too. interesting how the pro-cop side (when they're killing young black men) now deem murdering cops perfectly fine.

Republicans are fecking nuts and they are incredibly dangerous to any form of democracy at this point.

Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’

Reddit ‘Quarantines’ Pro-Trump Forum Over Anti-Police Threats

The threats of violence are totally unacceptable. However, as an extreme parliamentary tactic -- denying the majority a quorum -- in recent times, Democrats have done this in Texas and (I think) in Minnesota or Wisconsin. It's an extreme tactic, but entirely legal and, I think, fair for either side. I don't like it when it's done to sabotage legislation to help avert disastrous climate change; I hate it. But calling it irresponsible as a tactic is wrong. To call it irresponsible in their duties to the human species and the all the non-human species that -- willy nilly -- we have stewardship over, I agree with entirely.