Case Law Needed

[phillvr6]

As some may know, a couple of months ago I was knocked off my motorbike. To cut a long story short,

I was in the right hand lane of a two lane single carriageway passing stationary traffic in the left hand lane. (Clapham High Street)

I slowed to around 10mph ish as I approached a side street to the left (Nelsons Row) as there was a prison lorry stopped before the junction and I was wary that a car could be edging out.

As it happened, the lorry had flashed a car out of the junction (to turn right), the car didn't check the lane I was travelling in was clear and accelerated out of the sideroad. I avoided him but as he had not seen me he drove in the my bike writting it off.

My issue is this, the company dealing with my case (Minster Law)keep sending me case law where the motorcyclist has effectively made an additional lane to pass the stationary traffic, where the motorbike hits the car and where the car is edging out. They keep trying to get me to agree to go 50/50 and these people are supposed to be looking after my interests!

So, can anyone suggest any relevant case law which accuratelyt mirrors the events leading to the collision.

I was travelling in a designated lane, not making an additional lane.

The car drove in to me, I did not ride in to the bike.

The car did not edge out, it accelerated.

Any help or advice appreciated.

Thanks,

Phill

[Puggit]

I'd suggest this tread is better off in SP&L...

[Ian_S]

Your company must be taking Powell v Moody into account where the bike was overtaking down the middle of the road creating his own lane, and the bike was held 80% at fault, you need to explain that you were in your own lane, and had right of way. There may be slight liability on yourself to be wary of overtaking larger vehicles near a junction where your view is obstructed but i would expect it to be a lot less than 50%.
Sounds like they are being lazy.

[Ian_S]

Another case is Worsfold v Howe (1980)this is where the bike was in its own lane on the right similar to your situation but the right lane was for turning right only further up. The bike was effectively jumping the queue of stationary traffic, at a speed of 10-30mph, judge held 50/50 as bike travelling too fast past stationary traffic, and car gone beyond his line of vision.

[phillvr6]

Ian_S said:

Your company must be taking Powell v Moody into account where the bike was overtaking down the middle of the road creating his own lane, and the bike was held 80% at fault, you need to explain that you were in your own lane, and had right of way. There may be slight liability on yourself to be wary of overtaking larger vehicles near a junction where your view is obstructed but i would expect it to be a lot less than 50%.
Sounds like they are being lazy.

Bingo.

I have explained this to them a few times now and it was also clearly recorded in my liability questionaire.

I have my doubts as to whether the individual dealing my case has actually read the information I had provided.

Does it make any difference that he hit me as opposed to me riding in to him. My representative tells me it doesn't, I find this hard to believe.

Thanks,

Phill

[phillvr6]

Ian_S said:

Another case is Worsfold v Howe (1980)this is where the bike was in its own lane on the right similar to your situation but the right lane was for turning right only further up. The bike was effectively jumping the queue of stationary traffic, at a speed of 10-30mph, judge held 50/50 as bike travelling too fast past stationary traffic, and car gone beyond his line of vision.

Thanks for trying but theres no way I was going to quickly, much slower and I would have been stopped. The collision was at such a low speed that the bike just went over and didnt slide once it hit the road.

[Silent1]

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

[phillvr6]

Silent1 said:

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

If this is an option I might just do that. Remind me whats the name of the pistonheader who I need to speak with?

[mr_spock]

Minster are, IMHO, dreadful. I was hit in my car whilst stationary, with a witness, they settled 50/50 without my approval. Useless morons.

[phillvr6]

mr_spock said:

Minster are, IMHO, dreadful. I was hit in my car whilst stationary, with a witness, they settled 50/50 without my approval. Useless morons.

I'm getting that impression myself, although they're supposed to be looking after my interests, they keep trying to scare me in to going 50/50 by refering to irelevant case law. I have told them verbally, and in writing that they are not to settle 50/50.

Does anyone know where I stand with getting rid of them?

[s2art]

In Davis vs. Shrogin,2006, the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."

This has changed case law on the subject. If your solicitors are unaware of it I suggest you look for better solicitors.

[phillvr6]

s2art said:

In Davis vs. Shrogin,2006, the judge found that, and I quote, "a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action."

This has changed case law on the subject. If your solicitors are unaware of it I suggest you look for better solicitors.

You superstar! Thanks.

[TheGriffalo]

phillvr6 said:

Silent1 said:

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

If this is an option I might just do that. Remind me whats the name of the pistonheader who I need to speak with?

anniesdad

[10 Pence Short]

The solicitors acting for the motorcyclist I injured are called Silverbeck Rymer, based in Liverpool.

When my insurance arranged a third party accident investigator to look at my accident, and he found out they were dealing with the civil case, he immediately said that they were one of, if not the best at these kind of situations, and that a lot of insurance companies use them.

Might be worth giving them a call.

[The Hitman]

phillvr6 said:

As some may know, a couple of months ago I was knocked off my motorbike. To cut a long story short,

I was in the right hand lane of a two lane single carriageway passing stationary traffic in the left hand lane. (Clapham High Street)

I slowed to around 10mph ish as I approached a side street to the left (Nelsons Row) as there was a prison lorry stopped before the junction and I was wary that a car could be edging out.

As it happened, the lorry had flashed a car out of the junction (to turn right), the car didn't check the lane I was travelling in was clear and accelerated out of the sideroad. I avoided him but as he had not seen me he drove in the my bike writting it off.

My issue is this, the company dealing with my case (Minster Law)keep sending me case law where the motorcyclist has effectively made an additional lane to pass the stationary traffic, where the motorbike hits the car and where the car is edging out. They keep trying to get me to agree to go 50/50 and these people are supposed to be looking after my interests!

So, can anyone suggest any relevant case law which accuratelyt mirrors the events leading to the collision.

I was travelling in a designated lane, not making an additional lane.

The car drove in to me, I did not ride in to the bike.

The car did not edge out, it accelerated.

Any help or advice appreciated.

Thanks,

Phill

You were correctly proceeding in your lane and the third party had a duty of care towards you. You did NOT have a duty of care to uphold to them from pulling out of a side road.

They have to give way to already etablished traffic on the road. The arguement they are making is that you performed a manouver and therefore are equally negligent in the accident. Going by what you've described, this shouldn't be the case.

Call a free legal advice line to confirm all of this and maybe find out what case law is applicable to your situation.

I would suggest the this free Legal Advice line - 0845 603 8830

Edited by The Hitman on Friday 14th December 15:59

[Ian_S]

Davis v Schrogin is a different scenario, where the car driver pulled a u turn without looking, and the bike was filtering, bike forums all over the net now think this means they are fine to filter at speed and will be completely faultless, this is not the case.

[Ian_S]

what case law are they quoting at you?

[julian64]

I was on my bike filtering on the right past stationary traffic, and a car pulled out between the stationary traffic from the left knocking me over onto the floor.

It didn't get to court but it got close.

I was considered partly at fault as the motorcyclist because it was considered you can't overtake at a junction unless safe to do so, and if you get hit it obviously wasn't safe to do so.

The companies were half way through agreeing a 50:50 when I asked what the definition of a junction was. I personally couldn't believe that anyone can pull out of their driveway and effectively t-bone a car on a main road with a 50:50 result.
Their dual reply was that a junction was something where the yellow/white line was interupted. I took photos of the junction to prove this wasn't the case and won myself the claim in full.

In other words the law is a game you play with a rule book written by an idiot on one side, and you on the other have to guess the rules while blindfolded.

[phillvr6]

Powell v Moody 1966 - Not relevant as the bike was making a 3rd lane of traffic, the car was edging out and the bike hit the car.

Leeson Vs Bevis & Tolchard 1972 - Not relevant as it was a single lane road, the bike was making a second lane and the bike hit the car.

The 3rd part refered to Farley Vs Buckley 2006 - no relevance whatsoever as it involved a scooter passing a lorry which was turning left and letting a car out the junction he was turning in to.

Whilst Davis Vs Schrogin was a different scenario, surely the principal still stands. i.e. there was no way for me to avoid the car which drove in to the side of my bike?

[Silent1]

phillvr6 said:

Silent1 said:

If you can, ditch minsters and go with Europa Consultants, they're dealing with my motorbike accident and after 18 months of us playing hard ball the defendant has admitted full liability. They are pretty active in getting the other side to cough up if they're in the wrong.

If this is an option I might just do that. Remind me whats the name of the pistonheader who I need to speak with?

Anniesdad He'll help you, without a doubt one of the best guys i've met.