by Mike I » Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:56 pm
I'm not sure what the problem is here. If damages have been agreed at £370,000, Mr Telfer has suffered quite badly. That figure is likely to be a combination of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of earnings (over who knows how long), perhaps the cost of long-term care and - of course - damage to his bike. What is he supposed to do? Grin and bear it?
We don't know of course how badly his leader was riding or the extent to which Mr Telfer might have been the author of his own misfortune, and that's what the argument is about. But, like it or not, we all owe a duty of care to other road users, including fellow cyclists. If we breach that duty (by riding like an ar$e) and someone gets hurt as result, we are legally liable for the consequences. It's no different in principle to driving badly and causing an accident.
It might spoil a good headline for the BBC, but I suspect in truth this is not an argument between two cyclists, but between their insurers about who picks up the tab for Mr Telfer's injuries and other losses. Even less interesting, it's probably about they divide it up. Procedurally, though, the individuals will be the named parties in the court action.
And it's no good writing it off as some quaint aberration from north of the border. The English law of negligence has its roots in the Scots case of Donoghue v Stevenson - which, as any law student will tell you, involved a snail, a bottle of ginger beer and a cafe in Paisley.
So, ride safely out there and check your insurance.