-
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.
Jimmy_Fingers-
This reminds me of an incident a long way back where a cyclist was extremely incapacitated through alcohol, crashed their bike and propelled themselves into the opposite lane where they were tragically run over and killed by a car. The car driver was jailed for causing death by dangerous driving because the court deemed that the driver should have been driving at a slower speed due to the risk that a pedestrian (or drunk cyclist) could appear in their path.
-
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
Some more info coming out from a discussion between the legal bods involved and Martin Porter, specifically that [Hazledean] admitted that he saw her from 20m away and chose to accelerate rather than slow down.
https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752
(Useful info in those tweets from first to last...)
Stonehedge
Greenbank
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.