Lorry Driver did enough to avoid road traffic accident with cyclist

In a recent case, Smith v Hammond, the Court of Appeal had to consider the liability and contributory negligence of a teenaged boy who had cycled into the road and collided with a lorry.  The boy made a personal injury claim against the lorry driver and the lorry driver made a personal injury counter-claim for injuries caused by the accident.

The boy was delivering newspapers in a built-up area with a 30 mph speed restriction.  To continue with his newspaper round, the boy had to cross the road.  He got on his bicycle and cycled straight across the road without looking.  The lorry driver braked sharply and swerved to try and avoid the collision.

The Judge found the accident had been caused by the lorry driver’s negligence, but the boy was 60% liable for the accident.  The Judge felt the lorry driver should have sounded his horn in warning as he had seen the boy cycling towards the road.

The lorry driver appealed on the basis that he did not think the boy would cycle straight into the road and it was too much to expect the lorry driver to sound his horn whilst swerving and emergency braking to try and avoid the collision.  The expert witness had given evidence that even if the lorry driver had sounded his horn at that stage, there would have been a small delay or 3 – 4 seconds before the boy responded, by which time he would already have cycled into the road.

The Judge rejected the evidence and relied on his own experience of reacting to a horn when driving.  The Judge found that the boy could not have reasonably foreseen that if he had cycled into the road and was hit by a lorry, that injury could be caused to the lorry driver.

The Court of Appeal found that whilst the Judge was not obliged to accept expert evidence, he had to have good grounds for not accepting it.  In perfect circumstances, the lorry driver would have sounded his horn, however, the duty on the lorry driver was not one of perfection but of reasonableness and braking and swerving to avoid the accident were reasonable actions.  The Court also found that the Judge had applied the wrong question and should have asked whether a teenaged boy would reasonably have foreseen injury to another road user if he cycled out into the path of a vehicle, including another cyclist.  Therefore, the boy was substantially to blame for the accident and the lorry driver’s appeal was successful.

The boy’s employer confirmed that if the lorry driver’s appeal was successful, it would accept liability and not seek to recover any damages from the boy.

Can courts reduce accident compensation to bicyclists if they are not wearing a helmet?

The High Court had to consider a case where a motorcyclist was found liable for an accident involving a bicyclist.  The motorcyclist’s insurers asked the court to consider reducing compensation to the bicyclist for his injuries as he was not wearing a helmet.

 

Car drivers or passengers who are injured following a car accident can have their injury compensation reduced by up to 25% if they were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident.  This is because wearing seatbelts reduces the risk of more serious injury so a driver not wearing a seatbelt is at greater risk of injury if they are involved in a car accident.

 

Unlike motorcyclists’ helmets, bicyclists’ helmets do not offer full protection, particularly if the bicyclist hits the ground at speed.  There is no legal obligation for bicyclists to wear a helmet and the Highway Code only recommends one is worn.  Research into bicycle accidents and helmets is inconclusive as making helmets compulsory for bicyclists does not always reduce injuries after an accident and car drivers usually give more space to a bicyclist not wearing a helmet.

 

Courts can take into consideration whether or not the bicyclist was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident and can reduce accident compensation, even if the accident was not the bicyclist’s fault.  It is down to the insurers of the person who caused the accident to prove that wearing a helmet would have reduced injuries.  If it cannot be proved that wearing a helmet would have prevented injury, then accident compensation should not be reduced.