-
not to the extent where he deserves to pay £100k in legal fees for an accident where the blame was apportioned equally (IMO).
That was due to a quirk of the legal system though wasn't it? As I understand it, the pedestrian entered a claim, he could equally validly entered a counterclaim, which would have balanced it, but he didn't. Therefore when her claim was found to be valid (or whatever the correct term is) he ended up on the hook for a heap of cash, despite the fault having been found as 50:50.
ffm-
The problem that I see there: so the whole process cost her a pretty penny, judging by the amount she's apparently claiming back from him, right?
So if he had counter-sued, those process cost would just have been doubled overall, meaning both are just out of pocket more? How is that beneficial to anyone? Apart from the lawyers, obviously.
SwissChap
To be fair, he was riding like a bit of a twat, but not to the extent where he deserves to pay £100k in legal fees for an accident where the blame was apportioned equally (IMO).
It's really a shame that it went to court in the first place, causing 2 years of stress and lawyers' fees, rather than both parties recognising their own part in what happened, being grateful it wasn't worse, and leaving it at that.