-
I think it's important to acknowledge exactly what has happened here.
The cyclist represented himself at the beginning of the trial and chose to not put in a counterclaim against the pedestrian who was awarded £3kish for an 8mm scar on her lip. The rest of the £100k is court costs, which he probably wouldnt be liable for if he had lawyered up from the start and entered a counterclaim.
Moral of the story is, always lawyer up. Because if you try to be a nice guy and do the right thing in court, you make an easy target of yourself.
Stonehedge-
Yep. And £40 a year British Cycling membership gives you legal support from a decent firm of solicitors with a specialist cycling department so it's a total no brainer.
Will save anyone who needs to use it a fortune.
-
Oh I do not dispute that, it was principled but stupid. However the fact remains she made the decision to make a claim against him for something that was to most observers entirely her fault. While the judge may have ruled him equally to blame public opinion it seems does not. She and her lawyers look very greedy and the court system exploitative and unfair.
Fox
Jimmy_Fingers
Smashing it so far. For once public opinion is with the cyclist. Seeing articles about fines for 'phone zombies' as the press has christened them. Curious so I googled her name and all social media has been deleted. Guessing she didn't realise her and her lawyers' greed would attract so much public anger.