What it be Q ab­surd to set­tle for a third?

Motorcycle News (UK) - - Garage - An­drew Camp­bell So­lic­i­tor and au­thor of the MCN Law col­umn for the last five years An­drew Camp­bell, Bikelawyer. Visit www.bikelawyer.co.uk or email an­drew@bikelawyer.co.uk or call 01446 794169

I was over­tak­ing a long line of sta­tion­ary cars (heavy traf­fic mov­ing slowly once ev­ery minute or so) on the right-hand side us­ing the area with bro­ken chevrons when a car pulled out and knocked me off. I couldn’t have avoided it by brak­ing or steer­ing to the right be­cause I was next to his win­dow when he started his ac­tion. Luck­ily there was no on­com­ing traf­fic and I was only slightly hurt. The man be­hind the driver also con­firmed that I was rid­ing slowly out­side sta­tion­ary traf­fic and that the guy used no in­di­ca­tors as he tried to do a U-turn. Now his in­sur­ance is claim­ing I was over­tak­ing and hence am mainly to blame, re­sult­ing in them want­ing to of­fer me only 30% of the dam­ages. I re­alise you should only use the chevron area when nec­es­sary and safe to do so. Peter, New­cas­tle

A The def­i­ni­tion of “nec­es­sary” and “when safe to do so” are open to ju­di­cial in­ter­pre­ta­tion. But the many cases like this I have dealt with have re­sulted in 75% to 100% for clients – in other words the flip side of what you’ve been of­fered. Each case is fact-spe­cific but in your case I would seek to rely on Davis v Schro­gin, a Court of Ap­peal case that went 100% in favour of the biker. My feel­ing with­out see­ing the pa­pers but based on your de­tailed ac­count is 100% in your favour (other road users were aware of your pres­ence, so why was the neg­li­gent driver not?) but there is al­ways an in­her­ent risk in­volved in go­ing to court.

‘There was a Court of Ap­peal case that went 100% in favour of the rider’

Mo­tor­cy­cle Ac­ci­dent Solic­i­tors

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.