Biking court cases: Grace vs Tanner

Originally Posted by Kylie

Sorry to hear that, I'm not surprised, the stuff they have done to me is nearly as bad. They didn't tell me when they wrote the bike off, luckily the lady at the rescue yard called me to say that she'd been told to send my bike to a salvage yard and was that ok... Then on the legal side after hearing nothing for 7 months I get a letter (sent to my old adress, even though the insurers have charged me £200 for my recent change in address) saying that if I don't respond in 14 days they will assume I agree to 50/50. A bit better than what they did to you, but still, WTF?

The bit I like in their letter says that 50/50 means I will have to "pay 50% of the car driver's losses, if he has any". Like, after 7 months, shouldn't they f!?!?ing know if he has any losses?

I'd blame all this on ebike and their cheap rates, but I'm not sure other insurers would be any better.

Interesting to read this & find out that you're with ebike, my son is still waiting to get an outcome from his accident which happened almost a year ago, he was filtering up the side of a stationery que of traffic when this plonker in a car pulled out without looking or indicating & knocked him off, the people who deal with the claim proceedure on ebikes behalf say this will probably end up as a 50/50 claim because filtering involves an element of danger, i can't type my reply.

[Kylie]

Originally Posted by Foey

i can't type my reply.

I just sent them a very carefully worded "I won't accept 50/50 because..." letter. Odds on they will just wait another 8 months hoping that I get fed up and settle.

What I really need is a court verdict similar to Grace vs Tanner where the biker won. If I was Tom Cruise in a Grisham film I could read in the law library all night and find the case I needed at daybreak. But I don't have a law library and I can't find a searcheable court cases database online, seems you have to be a solicitor to get that, so I'm stuffed..........

Lynw's written rather a lot on 50/50 stuff after a incident she had which she drafted up a 'default' letter.

Post one.

Post two.

[Kylie]

You star! Lynw's letters aren't that much help, as I was not filtering or overtaking, but she references this site http://alpha.bailii.org/form/search_multidatabase.html which does appear to be a searchable law database. So I'll be up all night looking at all UK cases with the word roundabout in them....

I see one fundamental difference between the G & T (mmm alcyhol) case and yours. In your case there are two exits off the roundabout, therefore you were in your own lane, they crossed into it and knocked you off. Fight the numpty!

My IAM instructor has been pulling me up on this lately; he says it's too risky to be on the inside of any other vehicle when coming to a turning off a roundabout, due to the fact that people are more interested in looking at where they're going than the traffic around them. Previously I've preferred the centre or right hand lanes and been alongside vehicles at the exit.

His advice has been to filter into a gap in the traffic, either coming up to the roundabout or going onto the roundabout, and to never be on the inside of a vehicle (and putting your safety in their hands) when coming up to your exit.

There's no law that says you can't miss your turning, there's no law that says you have to be in one lane or the other, just guidance; being on the inside of someone on a roundabout means that you'll be overtaking them at some point - either when they turn off and you carry on, or when you turn off together at the same junction. Courts view someone who gets caught out when overtaking as the guilty party.

It doesn't excuse the fact that many car drivers are morons who don't care for the safety of others and don't bother looking before they do something daft; we need to *remember* that they're dangerous and not give them the chance to take us out in the first place. The court system won't automatically back you up - you have to have a good solicitor to argue that by crossing into another vehicle's potential path (which you have to do if you're going to take an exit and there's a vehicle on your left) you weren't at fault. It can be done, if you're willing to fight hard enough and the other solicitor isn't smart enough to know how to defend their client.

The best advice is to not expect another driver to do something and risk your life and machine on it though... then you don't have to deal with any of that. Good luck with the case, hope you get them to accept 100% liability. Too many biking cases now where just being on a bike is getting us 50% liability before we even start looking at who's fault it was.

[Kylie]

A happy ending!

At renewal time last summer e-bike sent me my details and it listed the accident but said the costs had been fully recovered. Was surprised as I hadn't heard back from them since I'd told them I wouldn't accept 50/50 and was told it would go to court. Thought might be a computer error but too busy moving house/job to worry about it.

Today I got a cheque from the insurers refunding my excess so its official, other party must not have fancied their chances in court and accepted 100%.

So full marks to e-bike and their subcontractor "The claims service" for getting the money, and no marks for letting me know what the hell happened and taking so long over it. Still, better than the other way round!

[Stu]

But shame there's no Kylie vs ... case proving it for the rest of us.

Nice! Justice is served, well done for not backing down when you were in the right. And incidently, that proves most of the advice from us lot on here was right too

Originally Posted by Kylie

Case: grace v tanner ( citator)
G appealed against the dismissal of her claim in negligence against t arising from a collision on a roundabout between her motorcycle and Ts vehicle. Both G and T had been proceeding south along the A23, which was a dual carriageway. T had been proceeding in the left hand lane around the roundabout. However, she noticed the exit for the A23 too late and therefore carried on in the left hand lane around the roundabout. G had been travelling in the right hand lane around the roundabout. She attempted to take the exit for the A23, assuming that T was going to do likewise, and the collision occurred. G accepted that she was negligent, but argued that T had been equally so.

Held, allowing the appeal, that T had not been negligent in missing her turning, she had been negligent in failing to realise that there might be someone in the outside lane who wanted to take the A23 exit. In the circumstances, a division of responsibility of 50/50 would be appropriate.

Court: (CA) Court of Appeal
Judge: Schiemann, L.J.; Judge, L.J.
Judgment date: February 27, 2003
Reported: [2003] EWCA Civ 354
Counsel: For G: S Walsh. For T: P Jones
Solicitors: For G: Nelson Nichols, For T: Healeys

Glad it turned out right but the way i read the above, in that case the biker was at fault not the car driver.