Weird compensation after cyclist killed
Discussion
https://news.stv.tv/north/widow-awarded-1-3m-from-...
He was 58% to blame. So his fault then?
Doesn’t mention much about the crash, it’s all about his families loss and feelings.
Just thought it a bit weird if he was to blame more, then why did they pay out so much?
He was 58% to blame. So his fault then?
Doesn’t mention much about the crash, it’s all about his families loss and feelings.
Just thought it a bit weird if he was to blame more, then why did they pay out so much?
hunt123 said:
Sad story.
I came off a motorbike after accelerating going over cow poo left on the road by a farmers cattle crossing the road. I was deemed 33% at fault because I was going "too fast for the road conditions", note I wasn'tspeeding, going faster than the legal limit, my compensation was reduced by 33%.
FTFYI came off a motorbike after accelerating going over cow poo left on the road by a farmers cattle crossing the road. I was deemed 33% at fault because I was going "too fast for the road conditions", note I wasn't
hunt123 said:
Sad story.
I came off a motorbike after accelerating going over cow poo left on the road by a farmers cattle crossing the road. I was deemed 33% at fault because I was going "too fast for the road conditions", note I wasn't speeding, my compensation was reduced by 33%.
That makes sense because it's less that 50% but to be sued for an incident that the claimant's was more at fault for strikes me as odd.I came off a motorbike after accelerating going over cow poo left on the road by a farmers cattle crossing the road. I was deemed 33% at fault because I was going "too fast for the road conditions", note I wasn't speeding, my compensation was reduced by 33%.
EmailAddress said:
Donbot said:
EmailAddress said:
Is it common for such compensation to be awarded, and divided based on culpability?
Yes. Happens with every crash.shambolic said:
I meant weird as in if he was more than 50% at fault then it was his fault.
So why compensation?
I know the court are saying that the way the lorry was driven contributed but if he hadn’t been at fault the probability is it wouldn’t have happened.
He was partially at fault. If he didn't contribute to the crash there would be no pay out regardless if the crash happened or not.So why compensation?
I know the court are saying that the way the lorry was driven contributed but if he hadn’t been at fault the probability is it wouldn’t have happened.
Why exactly is it weird?
It makes no different who was 'mostly' liable. It's split proportionately.
If I were held to be 49% responsible for somebody losing their life by contributing to a set of circumstances through my own direct negligence or error, I wouldn't expect to just walk away with no accountability.
It makes no different who was 'mostly' liable. It's split proportionately.
If I were held to be 49% responsible for somebody losing their life by contributing to a set of circumstances through my own direct negligence or error, I wouldn't expect to just walk away with no accountability.
shambolic said:
I meant weird as in if he was more than 50% at fault then it was his fault.
No, it was both of their faults. If it was solely the cyclist's fault then he would have been held 100% to blame.It's quite normal and the end result is that the risk costs of the accident are shared between the people to blame (or their insurance companies) in proportion to their share of the blame.
Consider a more common accident involving two cars, where both cars are damaged and the drivers are both to blame, but A is held to have twice as much responsibility as B. B can claim two thirds of his repair costs from A and A can in turn claim one third of his repair costs from B. The end result is that A ends up paying one third of the total costs, and B pays a third of them. Happens every day in insurance claims.
The principle here is no different - it's just that as one party bore a much greater share of the costs of the accident than the other, his claim ends up being much larger than the other party's. In principle the council could also claim 58% of their own costs from the cyclist (or his estate). But they won't, because suing a dead person over a few scratches to the bin lorry that killed him would not be a good look.
In days of yore any contributory negligence at all on the part of the victim was a complete defence to a negligence claim. You could be driving drunk, blindfolded, at 100 miles per hour through a built up area, but if the person you killed had signalled a bit late before turning you could avoid paying his family any compensation at all. This was obviously grossly unfair, so the law was changed to the current system where your compensation is reduced according to your share of the blame. And it's a sliding scale from 0 to 100% - there's nothing special about the 50% mark.
EmailAddress said:
Is there a standard for the financials, or guidelines available somewhere?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guidelines-Assessment-General-Personal-Judicial/dp/0192867628/ref=asc_df_0192867628/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=570321683974&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16660956798599270529&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046440&hvtargid=pla-1666840192514&psc=1&th=1&psc=1It does seem a slightly bizarre system asking jurors to decide who was at fault, do they not have police accident investigators in Scotland? Surely it also follows that had the bin lorry driver suffered any sort of injury or mental unwellness as a result of something for which somebody else was 58% guilty, he could sue the deceased’s estate accordingly?
Bonkers world; it’s tragic to lose anyone in a road traffic collision but I’m really not sure that everybody trying to sue one another is the best way forwards.
Bonkers world; it’s tragic to lose anyone in a road traffic collision but I’m really not sure that everybody trying to sue one another is the best way forwards.
Southerner said:
It does seem a slightly bizarre system asking jurors to decide who was at fault, do they not have police accident investigators in Scotland?
Police accident investigators gather evidence, they do not apportion blame. Apportioning blame is a job for the courts. The system is exactly the same as in England, except that Scotland has more jury trials in civil cases than England does - in England the ruling would be made by a judge alone.Southerner said:
Surely it also follows that had the bin lorry driver suffered any sort of injury or mental unwellness as a result of something for which somebody else was 58% guilty, he could sue the deceased’s estate accordingly?
Yes. (In practice it would be paid by the deceased's insurers, if he had any. Contrary to popular belief, most cyclists do.)Southerner said:
Bonkers world; it’s tragic to lose anyone in a road traffic collision but I’m really not sure that everybody trying to sue one another is the best way forwards.
So what's your alternative? Should families who lose a breadwinner to someone else's negligence just suck it up and accept their new lives of poverty? I'm glad I don't live in that world - it really would be bonkers.shambolic said:
I meant weird as in if he was more than 50% at fault then it was his fault.
This is a very common misconception about percentages. I can see that it seems intuitive to look at it that way as it's rounding up to 1 and down to 0, but that isn't a valid use of rounding as you are removing the information you are assessing by doing so.An example of how you are almost certainly using percentages correctly is when planning your day/clothing by looking at your weather forecast app of choice. If it says "60% chance of rain", you don't assume that means it definitely will rain (rounding up), likewise if it says "40% chance of rain" you don't assume it definitely will not rain (rounding down).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff