PH wrote:I know some will think it a small point, but he’s been found liable not negligent. Whatever people think of as fault or blame, that isn’t what the court considered, you could be liable for something and blameless.
This is completely wrong. There are some special cases where there can be a strict liability in law regardless of whether of not there is negligence, but this is not one of them. The liability in this case arises solely from the cyclist's negligence.
Bonefishblues wrote:robing wrote:Obviously the penalty is ridiculously overinflated and if he had been a member of Cycling UK then the liability would have been covered and I'm sure the lawyers would have been able to fight it.
Just checking in to ask whether that's the case, no matter that an individual has been found to be negligent?
The liability insurance provided by a specialist policy like Cycling UK's or the general cover under a household contents insurance policy will cover both the court award, the legal costs of defending the claim, and the claimant's legal costs. As this case illustrates bad decisions taken by someone unfamiliar with the law can be very expensive, and this is why insurers want to be notified as soon as possible of a claim. Dealing with it yourself initially, and only later asking your liability insurer to take it over, is a recipe for disaster. The possibility that you would have made mistakes and increased the eventual amount of the costs, is likely to entitle the insurer to refuse to take over dealing with the claim and leave you to it (in the jargon, you will have prejudiced your case).