M
Mikefule
Guest
plumsie wrote:
>
> I have taken reasonable care, I am attempting to ride in a cycle lane,
> they are parked illegally, I can't go past on the road side as that
> would be illegal so I am forced into a small gap, it is not my fault
> that they obstructed my path.
>
> Where is the line drawn?
>
Very clearly: if you crash into a stationary object, then the
assumption is that you have been negligent. -Res ipsa loquitur- - the
thing speaks for itself. If you blame the owner of the large
stationary object for you hitting it, or that you were not negligent
for hitting it, then the onus of proof is on you.
I write as someone who has spent 25 years working in insurance claims -
motor and household, public and employer's liability and dealing with
litigation arising from exactly this type of issue.
There are a few cases in Bingham's (the "bible" of RTA liability) where
the court has found in favour of the moving party. They are cases
where the moving party had no other choice, or where the obstructing
vehicle was unlit in the rain on a dark and stormy night, facing the
wrong way, and the driver of the moving vehicle was a heavily pregnant
nun on a mission of mercy to save a sick orphan from imminent death at
the hands of an axe murderer - that sort of thing.
If you damage a stationary vehicle, you are negligent. If you do it
carelessly or recklessly, then consider that perhaps the car's broken
down, or been left there in a genuine emergency, or stolen and
abandoned - and not the owner's fault.
Riding carefully is not "all reasonable precautions" when you could
dismount.
--
Mikefule
"The Sun is actually a GOD, bearing wonderful gifts."
Billy The Mountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/49360
>
> I have taken reasonable care, I am attempting to ride in a cycle lane,
> they are parked illegally, I can't go past on the road side as that
> would be illegal so I am forced into a small gap, it is not my fault
> that they obstructed my path.
>
> Where is the line drawn?
>
Very clearly: if you crash into a stationary object, then the
assumption is that you have been negligent. -Res ipsa loquitur- - the
thing speaks for itself. If you blame the owner of the large
stationary object for you hitting it, or that you were not negligent
for hitting it, then the onus of proof is on you.
I write as someone who has spent 25 years working in insurance claims -
motor and household, public and employer's liability and dealing with
litigation arising from exactly this type of issue.
There are a few cases in Bingham's (the "bible" of RTA liability) where
the court has found in favour of the moving party. They are cases
where the moving party had no other choice, or where the obstructing
vehicle was unlit in the rain on a dark and stormy night, facing the
wrong way, and the driver of the moving vehicle was a heavily pregnant
nun on a mission of mercy to save a sick orphan from imminent death at
the hands of an axe murderer - that sort of thing.
If you damage a stationary vehicle, you are negligent. If you do it
carelessly or recklessly, then consider that perhaps the car's broken
down, or been left there in a genuine emergency, or stolen and
abandoned - and not the owner's fault.
Riding carefully is not "all reasonable precautions" when you could
dismount.
--
Mikefule
"The Sun is actually a GOD, bearing wonderful gifts."
Billy The Mountain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/49360
