- Home
- Common Bike Accidents
- Motorbike Accidents Claim Solicitors - Read Decided Court Cases
Motorbike Accidents Claim Solicitors - Read Decided Court Cases
- By Motorbike Accident Injury
- Published 11 October 2008
- Common Bike Accidents
- Unrated
Motorbike Accident Injury
Hutcheon Solicitors is a Law Firm specialising in Motorbike Accident Injury Claims and legal protection for people with vulnerable circumstances in the UK
View all articles by Motorbike Accident Injury
Motorbike Accidents Claim Solicitors - Read Decided Court Cases
Motorbike Accident Claims - Real Decided Cases
Accident on a Race Track (Irish Case)
This action involves a claim for damages for personal injury while a competitor in an organised motorcycle road race. A claim was made by a competitor against the organisers when the motorcycle rider suffered injury when his motorcycle lost control and mounted a roundabout where he was thrown from the motorcycle hitting his leg against an unguarded kerb on the opposite side of the roundabout.
It was alleged by the motorcycle solicitors that the injuries were sustained because of the negligence of the promoters who, in breach of their own rules permitted a support rider confined to riding a 750cc motorcycle to compete on a 1000cc motorcycle. It was further alleged that as a novice road racer he did not have the experience to control more powerful motorcycles and that his lack of experience contributed to the accident. A further blame against the organisers of the course was that they failed to insulate and protect the kerb on the roundabout thus creating an unnecessary risk to competitors in the race at a known and anticipated danger point.
Motorcycle Accident & Injury
The claimant suffered a very painful knee injury which required several major operations and reconstruction, in medical terms “a comminuted intra-articular fracture of the left knee as well as a dislocation of the left knee joint and fracture of both posterior tibial condyles”. He had an open reduction and internal fixation of both sides of the tibia with arthroscopic fixation of the anterior cruciate ligament. He returned home in a cast brace which remained on his leg for three months. He has had several further arthroscopic procedures on his knee joint and has attended 88 sessions of intensive physiotherapy over the years.
Motorbike Accident claim Compensation
Finding for the claimant, he recovered for his injuries 70,000 euros past and 40,000 for future (the reason the judgement is in euros is because the case was heard in High Court of Ireland. As well as other out of pocket expenses the other major award was for the sum of 50,000 euros for loss of employment prospects. The claimant was a self employed plasterer and could not return to his pre-accident work due to his injuries. This head of claim could have been greater but for the fact that the claimant had good connections within his profession.
Motorcycle Accident at a Junction
The Claimant was riding his motorcycle at the junction when he was hit by a car. He sustained a serious injury to his left knee and his motorcycle accident solicitors agreed to apportion blame with the Defendant driver on a 75/25 split in favour of the Claimant.
On impact, the Claimant fell down to the left with the motorcycle on his left leg and his body twisted. He could not put any weight on his left leg when he got up from the road. Although an X-ray failed to identify any fracture, the Claimant's left knee remained swollen and painful. He was diagnosed as having sustained a medial collateral ligament injury as well as instability of the knee. An MRI scan showed a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament as well as a bucket-handle tear of his lateral meniscus as well as degerative changes.
On deciding how much compensation to award arising from the motorcycle accident the Claimant’s solicitor, noted that as a consequence of his the Claimant was "disabled" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act").
The judge awarded the motorcyclist compensation for his injuries and out of pocket expenses as follows:
i) Pain and suffering : £37,500.
ii) Past loss of earnings: £2,845.36.
iii) Knee replacement surgery: £8,500.
iv) Revision knee surgery: £8,704.80.
v) Loss of future earnings: £86,114.05.
vi) Loss of pension: £64,470.
vii) Loss of widow's pension: £4,687.40.
viii) Loss of life insurance: £5,582.80.
At total of £218,404.41. The amount was reduced by 25% to reflect the agreed apportionment of blame to £163,803.30 for the motorcycle claim.
Motorcycle Claim - Accident Undertaking a Coach
The Claimant was involved in a motorcycle accident whilst riding his 175 cc motorcycle southwards along a main road. The Defendant, driving a motor vehicle. As the claimant motorcycle rider, approached a junction there was ahead of him a stationary 40' long coach waiting to turn right. Approaching from the other side of the junction was a seven and a half ton lorry wanting to turn left. Both of these vehicles could not enter the side road as there was no room due to the presence of the Cortina.
The lorry and coach driver agreed to let the Cortina pull out of the junction to enter onto the main road. As the Cortina pulled out at about 5-10 mph the motorcycle rider decided to undertake the coach on the main road at about 20 mph. He did not see the Cortina pull out of the side road and an accident occurred.
The Jude held, that he considered that both the motorcycle rider and the car driver were equally to blame for the accident. The judge found that each party was performing an inherently dangerous manoeuvre. The defendant was passing in front of a coach which she could not see and the motorcycle rider was lawfully undertaking a coach around whose front he could not see. The judge overturned the lower courts decision where in that case the Judge ordered that the motorcycle rider was only 20% responsible for the accident.
Motorcycle Filtering Accident
Motorbike Accident Claim Case – Filtering (No 1)
A motorcycle was filtering past a single lane of queuing traffic at about 15mph. A van pulled out of a garage on the left in front of a queuing lorry.
A collision occurred between the motorcycle and the van. At first instance liability was apportioned 50:50 upheld on appeal
Motorbike Accident Claim Case – Filtering (No 2)
This case is in fact not a motorcycle case. There were 2 lanes of traffic. There was a junction on the left. A vehicle emerged from the junction between stationary vehicles.
There was a collision with a vehicle that had created a third lane on the on coming carriageway. The Court decided the emerging car driver was entitled to assume that no one would create a third lane and overtake at the junction. 100% against the overtaking car.
Motorbike Claim - Undertaking
Brooks v Burgess (1996)
A motorcycle was undertaking at 20mph on approach to a cross roads. A car emerging from the junction on the right was obscured from view. At first instance liability was apportioned 80:20 against the car driver as he was emerging from a minor into a major road.
On appeal the decision was 50:50 as both parties had undertaken dangerous manoeuvres and each should have been aware of the risks.
Motorbike Claim - Overtaking
Irwin v Stevenson (2002)
The defendant was driving a tractor that was overtaken by the claimant riding a motorcycle as the tractor commenced a right turn into a field.
At first instance the judge found that there was a van behind the tractor and the defendant had indicated well in advance of the intended manoeuvre. The judge accepted that the defendant had looked in his mirror, signalled then manoeuvred.
The judge held that a prudent driver would have looked in his mirror or over his shoulder immediately before turning. He concluded that the motorcycle was there to be seen. Liability was apportioned on a 50:50 basis.
On Appeal
The defendant, with advice from his accident solicitor appealed on the basis that he the claimant had tried to overtake the van and the tractor in one manoeuvre and as such there had been no time to see him.
The Court Decided – The van driver had anticipated the accident as he had seen the tractor indicating and seen it start to turn when he saw the claimant overtaking. The defendant had therefore commenced his turn before the motorcycle emerged from behind the van. The defendant could not have anticipated that in the time the claimant was there to be seen he would have attempted a double overtaking manoeuvre. D could not be criticised for concentrating on his manoeuvre once he had commenced it Appeal allowed. D not liable
Pedestrian Hit by a Motorcycle Courier at Traffic Lights
A motorcycle Courier riding on a Honda 600 cc struck a pedestrian at traffic lights when they had only just changed to green. The judge in this case found that both the pedestrian and the motorcycle courier were to blame for the accident.
In summing up the judge said the pedestrian should have taken greater care when running across the road. Had she had seen the motorcycle courier it was inconceivable that she would not before the accident have seen the motorcycle courier ride between two vehicles at the junction. On the other hand the motorcycle courier had ridden his motorcycle between two vehicles at the junction making it more difficult for the pedestrian to see the motorcyclist.
However the motorcycle courier both causatively and from the point of view of blameworthiness, when riding into the junction without slowing down when the lights had only just changed in his favour and could not been keeping a proper lookout, was more blameworthy than the motorcycle courier.
The judge found that as the motorcycle rider failed to slow down at the junction after the lights had only just changed to green, he could not have been keeping a proper lookout and was more to blame than the pedestrian and apportioned liability to 75% for the motorcycle courier and 25% to the pedestrian.
Motorcycle Hit the rear right side of a Volvo
The motorcycle claimant loses his case against a Volvo driver who pulled out of a side road onto a main road at a staggered junction. Almost instantaneously the Volvo driver after successfully positioning itself onto the main road attempted to turn right.
As the Volvo driver was attempting to turn right the motorcycle rider his the rear side (passenger door) of the vehicle. The motorcycle rider was catapulted over the roof of the Volvo as a result of the collision and sustained serious injury. The Court at the first hearing found 100% for the Volvo driver. The motorcycle rider's solicitors appealed against the decision.
After carefully considering the evidence the Judge found that the Volvo driver had looked right and before pulling out onto the main road and that the road was in fact clear. He concluded that as a result, the motorcycle rider must have been traveling at excessive speed over the brow of a hill (which is why the Volvo driver did not see the motorcycle rider) and thus the accident was wholly caused by the motorcycle rider.
The Judge refused the appeal from the motorcycle rider's solicitors that the Volvo driver was to blame for the accident in full or in part and thus failed to pay any compensation to him for his injuries.
Motorcycle Hit when Car attempting “U” Turn
When riding a motorcycle on a main road, a parked vehicle (on the same side and direction of travel of the motorcycle) attempted to perform a “U” turn.
As the driver of the vehicle pulled out, the motorcycle rider collided into the driver’s door. Both the motorcycle rider and his pillion rider were thrown into the air and catapulted a distance of about 30 – 40 feet beyond the vehicle.
If the facts of the case as presented above were found then both the motorcycle rider and pillion passenger would have been compensated. However the evidence turned out to be somewhat sceptical and it turned out that the accident did not occur as presented on the evidence presented at court.
As a result it was the motorcycle rider who was held responsible in full to the pillion rider for his injuries.
Motorcycle Injuries
The pillion motorcycle rider suffered a transverse fracture of the mid-shaft left femur which was comminuted, as well as a left ankle fracture. In addition he had the usual abrasions and soforth one would associate with being thrown from “a left periorbital haematoma and abrasion on left forehead”. In this Irish case he was awarded 50,000 euros in 2005.
The Defendant’s Insurer’s Favorite
POWELL v MOODY (1968) CA
The court of appeal stated that any vehicle which “jumped the queue” was undertaking a hazardous manoeuvre which had to be carried out with great care; there was a high degree or care required by the motor cyclist and effectively the burden was on the motorcyclist to make sure it was safe to overtake.
The concept of queuing goes deep into the national psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that “jump the queue” : if an accident happens where someone is doing this, then the natural reaction has been to blame the person who is in breach of the natural order of the queuing.
POWELL v HANSEN (2001)
P was riding his Honda 750 along Middle Street. Lower Nazeing. The limit was 30mph but he was above the limit: had he been going at or below it the collision would have been avoided.
A car driven by the first and second defendants were waiting to turn right at traffic lights. This. meant crossing the claimants path. The second defendant had completed his turn when the first defendant was run into by the claimant on his motorcycle. The claimant sustained severe injuries in the collision and was unable to give an account of what happened.
The Judge Ordered:-
(1) The first defendant had gone forward beyond the stop line when he could not clear the junction and when he was not taking up a safe position to turn right (thereby being in breach of rule 114 of the Highway Code).
(2) The negligence of both parties caused the accident but the proportion of that causation was only measurable by their respective culpability. It was the first defendant who was engaged in the potentially dangerous manoeuvre (the right turn) whereas the claimant was only driving ahead on a course for which he was entitled to the right of way. The first defendant should never have done what he did, yet the speeding motorcyclist, already fearing some danger, was deprived by his excessive speed of being able to do anything to avoid the collision.
(3) The apportionment was 80;20.
NOSE POKING AND FILTERING
This case puts a different spin on “nose poking”. It deals with the common practice of motor cycles overtaking lines of traffic.
The claimant was riding his motor scooter on a main road on which the speed limit was 30mph at the time he was overtaking a long refuse lorry which was indicating to turn left into a side road. The claimant was travelling at 30mph. The lorry could not complete the manoeuvre until the defendant’s car, which was in a side road to the left, had exited onto the main road.
FACTS
The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front or the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which was just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front of the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which s just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
The refuse lorry at the time of impact had been moving very slowly; there were only a couple of feet between the offside of the lorry and the centre of the road; the motor scooter must have been virtually on or over the centre of the white line; the defendant had stopped at the junction but was travelling at some 5-8mph when it passed the refuse lorry.
FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)
NOSE POKING
This case is more important than it might at first seem. The reason is that, the court of Appeal confirmed, many road accidents involve collisions between two vehicles, one emerging from a side road into a major road along which the other is travelling. For some years now the approach of the courts has seemed to be that, even where the emerging car “nose-pokes”, i.e. slowly edges forward, he may still be 50 per cent liable for the accident which subsequently occurs. The Defendant’s accident solicitor could argue who’s at fault
WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID
1. The defendant was travelling “slowly and cautiously” at the time of the collision.
2. The act of the claimant in trying to overtake the refuse lorry in the manner in which he did was reckless.
3. There was hardly any room between the offside of the refuse lorry and the centre line to enable the defendant to accurately estimate the amount he would have to “nose poke”.
4. The defendant’s accident solicitor argued, that he had not in fact “nose poked” but had moved in a continuous motion albeit slowly.
RISK AND TRACK DAYS
The Claimant a keen motorcyclist quadriplegic, with advise from his accident solicitor appealed against the dismissal of his claim in negligence against the Defendant. He had broken his neck in a motorcycling accident which had taken place at an event organized by the Defendant. The claimant’s accident solicitor argued that the Defendant had failed to ensure that the groups of riders, which had been categorized according to their ability, were kept separate with a result that the claimant had been hindered by slow riders on the race track, a factor, which had been causative of the accident.
The Court Ordered: allowing the appeal, that the Defendant’s duty of care had extended preventing faster riders from being obstructed by slower riders, the solution to which was to stop the separate groups from being on the race track at the same time. The judge in the first instance had failed to draw a correct conclusion on the causative effect of mixing different groups of riders on the race track and whilst the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to a certain extent, the Defendant’s breach of duty had been the principal causative factor.
RIDING IN GROUPS
Sharpe v Avery & Kirkwood (1983) CA
Before setting out it was agreed that the Claimant would lead the way as he knew the route. Defendant rode some 8yards behind. Claimant took a wrong turning and drove onto waste ground, braked skidded and came to rest. Defendant followed off road and collided with Claimant. Claimant liable. Upheld at appeal. NB arguable that defendant also liable for riding too close.
Smith v Harris (1939) CA
Five motorbike riders on a treasure hunt.
It was agreed that the Claimant should lead as he was good at finding clues.
All traveling at 25-30mph 8 yards apart. The Claimant overshot a turning and braked hard. The second biker swerves and was thrown to floor to the right of Claimant. The third motorcyclist swerved and was thrown to the left of the Claimant. The forth biker swerved to avoid rider 3 and ran over rider 2.Lead and forth bikers held equally to blame. The Claimant for pulling up too sharply. Biker 4 for failing to properly control his machine.
SPEEDING?
Good evidence of speed
· Accident reconstruction evidence
· Impact damage to vehicles/road furniture
· Skid marks
· Speed /Times /Distance evidence
· Restricted motorcycle
· Running in
Bad evidence of speed
· It sounded loud (Boston v Lacey)
· He was wearing race replica leathers / helmet
· It was a motorcycle
· It came from nowhere
· He was going like a bat out of hell
THE HIGHWAY CODE
The Highway Code contains both mandatory (must) and advisory (should) rules. The Highway Code also identifies motorcyclists as vulnerable road users.
Para 71 – when overtaking traffic queues look for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and for vehicles emerging between junctions.
Para 91 – if another driver flashes his lights never assume that it is a signal to go use your own judgment.
Para 143 – do not overtake where you may come into contact with other road users. Eg approaching or at road junctions on either side of the road. Extra care should therefore be taken at junctions particularly watching out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.
Para 187 – always look out for motorcyclists when emerging out from junctions. “Think once Think twice Think bike”. The Highway code states that “it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions or at roundabouts. Always look out for them when you are emerging out from a junction.”
Accident on a Race Track (Irish Case)
This action involves a claim for damages for personal injury while a competitor in an organised motorcycle road race. A claim was made by a competitor against the organisers when the motorcycle rider suffered injury when his motorcycle lost control and mounted a roundabout where he was thrown from the motorcycle hitting his leg against an unguarded kerb on the opposite side of the roundabout.
It was alleged by the motorcycle solicitors that the injuries were sustained because of the negligence of the promoters who, in breach of their own rules permitted a support rider confined to riding a 750cc motorcycle to compete on a 1000cc motorcycle. It was further alleged that as a novice road racer he did not have the experience to control more powerful motorcycles and that his lack of experience contributed to the accident. A further blame against the organisers of the course was that they failed to insulate and protect the kerb on the roundabout thus creating an unnecessary risk to competitors in the race at a known and anticipated danger point.
Motorcycle Accident & Injury
The claimant suffered a very painful knee injury which required several major operations and reconstruction, in medical terms “a comminuted intra-articular fracture of the left knee as well as a dislocation of the left knee joint and fracture of both posterior tibial condyles”. He had an open reduction and internal fixation of both sides of the tibia with arthroscopic fixation of the anterior cruciate ligament. He returned home in a cast brace which remained on his leg for three months. He has had several further arthroscopic procedures on his knee joint and has attended 88 sessions of intensive physiotherapy over the years.
Motorbike Accident claim Compensation
Finding for the claimant, he recovered for his injuries 70,000 euros past and 40,000 for future (the reason the judgement is in euros is because the case was heard in High Court of Ireland. As well as other out of pocket expenses the other major award was for the sum of 50,000 euros for loss of employment prospects. The claimant was a self employed plasterer and could not return to his pre-accident work due to his injuries. This head of claim could have been greater but for the fact that the claimant had good connections within his profession.
Motorcycle Accident at a Junction
The Claimant was riding his motorcycle at the junction when he was hit by a car. He sustained a serious injury to his left knee and his motorcycle accident solicitors agreed to apportion blame with the Defendant driver on a 75/25 split in favour of the Claimant.
On impact, the Claimant fell down to the left with the motorcycle on his left leg and his body twisted. He could not put any weight on his left leg when he got up from the road. Although an X-ray failed to identify any fracture, the Claimant's left knee remained swollen and painful. He was diagnosed as having sustained a medial collateral ligament injury as well as instability of the knee. An MRI scan showed a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament as well as a bucket-handle tear of his lateral meniscus as well as degerative changes.
On deciding how much compensation to award arising from the motorcycle accident the Claimant’s solicitor, noted that as a consequence of his the Claimant was "disabled" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act").
The judge awarded the motorcyclist compensation for his injuries and out of pocket expenses as follows:
i) Pain and suffering : £37,500.
ii) Past loss of earnings: £2,845.36.
iii) Knee replacement surgery: £8,500.
iv) Revision knee surgery: £8,704.80.
v) Loss of future earnings: £86,114.05.
vi) Loss of pension: £64,470.
vii) Loss of widow's pension: £4,687.40.
viii) Loss of life insurance: £5,582.80.
At total of £218,404.41. The amount was reduced by 25% to reflect the agreed apportionment of blame to £163,803.30 for the motorcycle claim.
Motorcycle Claim - Accident Undertaking a Coach
The Claimant was involved in a motorcycle accident whilst riding his 175 cc motorcycle southwards along a main road. The Defendant, driving a motor vehicle. As the claimant motorcycle rider, approached a junction there was ahead of him a stationary 40' long coach waiting to turn right. Approaching from the other side of the junction was a seven and a half ton lorry wanting to turn left. Both of these vehicles could not enter the side road as there was no room due to the presence of the Cortina.
The lorry and coach driver agreed to let the Cortina pull out of the junction to enter onto the main road. As the Cortina pulled out at about 5-10 mph the motorcycle rider decided to undertake the coach on the main road at about 20 mph. He did not see the Cortina pull out of the side road and an accident occurred.
The Jude held, that he considered that both the motorcycle rider and the car driver were equally to blame for the accident. The judge found that each party was performing an inherently dangerous manoeuvre. The defendant was passing in front of a coach which she could not see and the motorcycle rider was lawfully undertaking a coach around whose front he could not see. The judge overturned the lower courts decision where in that case the Judge ordered that the motorcycle rider was only 20% responsible for the accident.
Motorcycle Filtering Accident
Motorbike Accident Claim Case – Filtering (No 1)
A motorcycle was filtering past a single lane of queuing traffic at about 15mph. A van pulled out of a garage on the left in front of a queuing lorry.
A collision occurred between the motorcycle and the van. At first instance liability was apportioned 50:50 upheld on appeal
Motorbike Accident Claim Case – Filtering (No 2)
This case is in fact not a motorcycle case. There were 2 lanes of traffic. There was a junction on the left. A vehicle emerged from the junction between stationary vehicles.
There was a collision with a vehicle that had created a third lane on the on coming carriageway. The Court decided the emerging car driver was entitled to assume that no one would create a third lane and overtake at the junction. 100% against the overtaking car.
Motorbike Claim - Undertaking
Brooks v Burgess (1996)
A motorcycle was undertaking at 20mph on approach to a cross roads. A car emerging from the junction on the right was obscured from view. At first instance liability was apportioned 80:20 against the car driver as he was emerging from a minor into a major road.
On appeal the decision was 50:50 as both parties had undertaken dangerous manoeuvres and each should have been aware of the risks.
Motorbike Claim - Overtaking
Irwin v Stevenson (2002)
The defendant was driving a tractor that was overtaken by the claimant riding a motorcycle as the tractor commenced a right turn into a field.
At first instance the judge found that there was a van behind the tractor and the defendant had indicated well in advance of the intended manoeuvre. The judge accepted that the defendant had looked in his mirror, signalled then manoeuvred.
The judge held that a prudent driver would have looked in his mirror or over his shoulder immediately before turning. He concluded that the motorcycle was there to be seen. Liability was apportioned on a 50:50 basis.
On Appeal
The defendant, with advice from his accident solicitor appealed on the basis that he the claimant had tried to overtake the van and the tractor in one manoeuvre and as such there had been no time to see him.
The Court Decided – The van driver had anticipated the accident as he had seen the tractor indicating and seen it start to turn when he saw the claimant overtaking. The defendant had therefore commenced his turn before the motorcycle emerged from behind the van. The defendant could not have anticipated that in the time the claimant was there to be seen he would have attempted a double overtaking manoeuvre. D could not be criticised for concentrating on his manoeuvre once he had commenced it Appeal allowed. D not liable
Pedestrian Hit by a Motorcycle Courier at Traffic Lights
A motorcycle Courier riding on a Honda 600 cc struck a pedestrian at traffic lights when they had only just changed to green. The judge in this case found that both the pedestrian and the motorcycle courier were to blame for the accident.
In summing up the judge said the pedestrian should have taken greater care when running across the road. Had she had seen the motorcycle courier it was inconceivable that she would not before the accident have seen the motorcycle courier ride between two vehicles at the junction. On the other hand the motorcycle courier had ridden his motorcycle between two vehicles at the junction making it more difficult for the pedestrian to see the motorcyclist.
However the motorcycle courier both causatively and from the point of view of blameworthiness, when riding into the junction without slowing down when the lights had only just changed in his favour and could not been keeping a proper lookout, was more blameworthy than the motorcycle courier.
The judge found that as the motorcycle rider failed to slow down at the junction after the lights had only just changed to green, he could not have been keeping a proper lookout and was more to blame than the pedestrian and apportioned liability to 75% for the motorcycle courier and 25% to the pedestrian.
Motorcycle Hit the rear right side of a Volvo
The motorcycle claimant loses his case against a Volvo driver who pulled out of a side road onto a main road at a staggered junction. Almost instantaneously the Volvo driver after successfully positioning itself onto the main road attempted to turn right.
As the Volvo driver was attempting to turn right the motorcycle rider his the rear side (passenger door) of the vehicle. The motorcycle rider was catapulted over the roof of the Volvo as a result of the collision and sustained serious injury. The Court at the first hearing found 100% for the Volvo driver. The motorcycle rider's solicitors appealed against the decision.
After carefully considering the evidence the Judge found that the Volvo driver had looked right and before pulling out onto the main road and that the road was in fact clear. He concluded that as a result, the motorcycle rider must have been traveling at excessive speed over the brow of a hill (which is why the Volvo driver did not see the motorcycle rider) and thus the accident was wholly caused by the motorcycle rider.
The Judge refused the appeal from the motorcycle rider's solicitors that the Volvo driver was to blame for the accident in full or in part and thus failed to pay any compensation to him for his injuries.
Motorcycle Hit when Car attempting “U” Turn
When riding a motorcycle on a main road, a parked vehicle (on the same side and direction of travel of the motorcycle) attempted to perform a “U” turn.
As the driver of the vehicle pulled out, the motorcycle rider collided into the driver’s door. Both the motorcycle rider and his pillion rider were thrown into the air and catapulted a distance of about 30 – 40 feet beyond the vehicle.
If the facts of the case as presented above were found then both the motorcycle rider and pillion passenger would have been compensated. However the evidence turned out to be somewhat sceptical and it turned out that the accident did not occur as presented on the evidence presented at court.
As a result it was the motorcycle rider who was held responsible in full to the pillion rider for his injuries.
Motorcycle Injuries
The pillion motorcycle rider suffered a transverse fracture of the mid-shaft left femur which was comminuted, as well as a left ankle fracture. In addition he had the usual abrasions and soforth one would associate with being thrown from “a left periorbital haematoma and abrasion on left forehead”. In this Irish case he was awarded 50,000 euros in 2005.
The Defendant’s Insurer’s Favorite
POWELL v MOODY (1968) CA
The court of appeal stated that any vehicle which “jumped the queue” was undertaking a hazardous manoeuvre which had to be carried out with great care; there was a high degree or care required by the motor cyclist and effectively the burden was on the motorcyclist to make sure it was safe to overtake.
The concept of queuing goes deep into the national psyche and there is a subconscious objection to those that “jump the queue” : if an accident happens where someone is doing this, then the natural reaction has been to blame the person who is in breach of the natural order of the queuing.
POWELL v HANSEN (2001)
P was riding his Honda 750 along Middle Street. Lower Nazeing. The limit was 30mph but he was above the limit: had he been going at or below it the collision would have been avoided.
A car driven by the first and second defendants were waiting to turn right at traffic lights. This. meant crossing the claimants path. The second defendant had completed his turn when the first defendant was run into by the claimant on his motorcycle. The claimant sustained severe injuries in the collision and was unable to give an account of what happened.
The Judge Ordered:-
(1) The first defendant had gone forward beyond the stop line when he could not clear the junction and when he was not taking up a safe position to turn right (thereby being in breach of rule 114 of the Highway Code).
(2) The negligence of both parties caused the accident but the proportion of that causation was only measurable by their respective culpability. It was the first defendant who was engaged in the potentially dangerous manoeuvre (the right turn) whereas the claimant was only driving ahead on a course for which he was entitled to the right of way. The first defendant should never have done what he did, yet the speeding motorcyclist, already fearing some danger, was deprived by his excessive speed of being able to do anything to avoid the collision.
(3) The apportionment was 80;20.
NOSE POKING AND FILTERING
This case puts a different spin on “nose poking”. It deals with the common practice of motor cycles overtaking lines of traffic.
The claimant was riding his motor scooter on a main road on which the speed limit was 30mph at the time he was overtaking a long refuse lorry which was indicating to turn left into a side road. The claimant was travelling at 30mph. The lorry could not complete the manoeuvre until the defendant’s car, which was in a side road to the left, had exited onto the main road.
FACTS
The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front or the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which was just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
The refuse lorry slowed down to enable the defendant to emerge. The defendant had been intending to turn right. The defendant waited until there was a gap in the traffic in both directions and then drove in front of the refuse lorry. In doing so the defendant collided with the scooter being driven by the claimant, which s just completing its overtaking of the refuse lorry.
The refuse lorry at the time of impact had been moving very slowly; there were only a couple of feet between the offside of the lorry and the centre of the road; the motor scooter must have been virtually on or over the centre of the white line; the defendant had stopped at the junction but was travelling at some 5-8mph when it passed the refuse lorry.
FARLEY v BUCKLEY (2007)
NOSE POKING
This case is more important than it might at first seem. The reason is that, the court of Appeal confirmed, many road accidents involve collisions between two vehicles, one emerging from a side road into a major road along which the other is travelling. For some years now the approach of the courts has seemed to be that, even where the emerging car “nose-pokes”, i.e. slowly edges forward, he may still be 50 per cent liable for the accident which subsequently occurs. The Defendant’s accident solicitor could argue who’s at fault
WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID
1. The defendant was travelling “slowly and cautiously” at the time of the collision.
2. The act of the claimant in trying to overtake the refuse lorry in the manner in which he did was reckless.
3. There was hardly any room between the offside of the refuse lorry and the centre line to enable the defendant to accurately estimate the amount he would have to “nose poke”.
4. The defendant’s accident solicitor argued, that he had not in fact “nose poked” but had moved in a continuous motion albeit slowly.
RISK AND TRACK DAYS
The Claimant a keen motorcyclist quadriplegic, with advise from his accident solicitor appealed against the dismissal of his claim in negligence against the Defendant. He had broken his neck in a motorcycling accident which had taken place at an event organized by the Defendant. The claimant’s accident solicitor argued that the Defendant had failed to ensure that the groups of riders, which had been categorized according to their ability, were kept separate with a result that the claimant had been hindered by slow riders on the race track, a factor, which had been causative of the accident.
The Court Ordered: allowing the appeal, that the Defendant’s duty of care had extended preventing faster riders from being obstructed by slower riders, the solution to which was to stop the separate groups from being on the race track at the same time. The judge in the first instance had failed to draw a correct conclusion on the causative effect of mixing different groups of riders on the race track and whilst the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to a certain extent, the Defendant’s breach of duty had been the principal causative factor.
RIDING IN GROUPS
Sharpe v Avery & Kirkwood (1983) CA
Before setting out it was agreed that the Claimant would lead the way as he knew the route. Defendant rode some 8yards behind. Claimant took a wrong turning and drove onto waste ground, braked skidded and came to rest. Defendant followed off road and collided with Claimant. Claimant liable. Upheld at appeal. NB arguable that defendant also liable for riding too close.
Smith v Harris (1939) CA
Five motorbike riders on a treasure hunt.
It was agreed that the Claimant should lead as he was good at finding clues.
All traveling at 25-30mph 8 yards apart. The Claimant overshot a turning and braked hard. The second biker swerves and was thrown to floor to the right of Claimant. The third motorcyclist swerved and was thrown to the left of the Claimant. The forth biker swerved to avoid rider 3 and ran over rider 2.Lead and forth bikers held equally to blame. The Claimant for pulling up too sharply. Biker 4 for failing to properly control his machine.
SPEEDING?
Good evidence of speed
· Accident reconstruction evidence
· Impact damage to vehicles/road furniture
· Skid marks
· Speed /Times /Distance evidence
· Restricted motorcycle
· Running in
Bad evidence of speed
· It sounded loud (Boston v Lacey)
· He was wearing race replica leathers / helmet
· It was a motorcycle
· It came from nowhere
· He was going like a bat out of hell
THE HIGHWAY CODE
The Highway Code contains both mandatory (must) and advisory (should) rules. The Highway Code also identifies motorcyclists as vulnerable road users.
Para 71 – when overtaking traffic queues look for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and for vehicles emerging between junctions.
Para 91 – if another driver flashes his lights never assume that it is a signal to go use your own judgment.
Para 143 – do not overtake where you may come into contact with other road users. Eg approaching or at road junctions on either side of the road. Extra care should therefore be taken at junctions particularly watching out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.
Para 187 – always look out for motorcyclists when emerging out from junctions. “Think once Think twice Think bike”. The Highway code states that “it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions or at roundabouts. Always look out for them when you are emerging out from a junction.”