Court overturns rider's crash compensation

Despite being hit be a lorry that was on the wrong side of the road...

Posted: 15 May 2012
by Visordown News

WHEN Soham rider Robert Whiteford won the right to damages after losing a leg in a crash caused by a Lithuanian truck that crossed the central line on a road near Ely, it didn't make the news. But now the truck operator has been sensationally cleared of negligence by the Court of Appeal.

Whiteford lost his right leg when the truck struck him a glancing blow back in August 2009. He was on his side of the road and evidence showed the truck had been partially across the central white line. Cambridge County Court last year awarded Whiteford the right to claim damages, potentially worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, from the truck's Lithuanian operator.

However, the operator appealed, claiming that it was wrong to “impose so high a standard of driving” on the lorry driver, and saying that the motorcyclist was riding too close to the centre of the road. The Court of Appeal agreed. Yes, you read that right; the HGV crossed into his lane and the court still decided the accident was the rider's fault. Compensation? Zero.

The problem was that Whiteford had earlier accepted part of the responsibility for the accident when the lawyers for the truck firm claimed that in the circumstances he should have been riding in the middle of his lane instead of near the white line.

In the appeal, Jonathan Watt-Pringle QC argued for the truck operator, saying: “The collision occurred for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the claimant was driving right close to the centre when he accepted that the course should have been a very different one.”

In his ruling, Lord Justice Richards said: “A finding of negligence in this case would, to my mind, be to impose an unacceptably high standard on the driver.”

The BMF has now written to Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke, asking “how it can possibly be right that a driver licensed to drive the largest and most dangerous vehicles on the road is not expected to stay on his side of the road?”



Previous article
Free accessories with BMW's 1200GS and RT		 Next article
Could Audi's e-bike become a Ducati?


court, crash, compensative, hgv, court of appeal, overturn
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDiggRedditGoogle

Related Products

Suzuki SV1000 (2003 - 2005)

Discuss this story


paulnyzf
Not wishing to sound paranoid, but is it just me who's noticed that it is now apparently impossible for any kind of cager to be prosecuted for murdering or maiming a motorcyclist in this country?

Seems to me that the authorities now work on the basis that the motorcyclist is guilty of something/anything by default in the event of an incident, and the cager gets off scot-free automatically - look at the case of the ignorant bint driving an unroadworthy MG without a license, insurance or authorisation a few months ago; dead biker, no charges, business as usual

So is it a coincidence that all of the 'people' running our courts have simultaneously decided that our lives are worthless, or is it more likely that our beloved government are trying to make motorcycles so unattractive that we'll give them up before the EU vermin dream up new legislation effectively banning the machines?

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 11:39


BraveCat
Disgusting treatment! M/C was on his side of the road, lorry wasn't. Simple!

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 11:48


rjdjones
@ pauln_yzf

Awful story - here's a link to the details about the case

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25986

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 12:18


stormingjoe
Would have been different if the rider had not accepted part liability earlier for hugging the line, lesson learnt as. Thing to note, large vehicles do have authority to cross 'the line' as some roads are not wide enough, as long as they proceed with caution. Not making excuse's here for either party, as we are without the full facts.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 12:30


scotsman418
It's the usual us and them attitude showing it's ugly head where the law doesn't like all bikers even if it's the law abiding ones that get stuck with the stigma because of a few idiots on bikes in the past have now casted a long shadow saying that all bikers are reckless on the road. If the lorry driver had a genuine reason to cross the line say to avoid potholes or to prevent brushing the vehicle against over hanging tree branches then that's understandable but he SHOULD have pamped his horn to warn oncoming vehicles and if he didn't then he is guilty of causing a danger to other road users!

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 12:39


TwentyTrees
I'm a motorcyclist, bus driver and I have access to Google.

The decision is definitely open to debate, but it's not nearly as obvious as this article suggests.

What the writer fails to mention is that when the Lord Justice said "unacceptably high standard of driving" what he meant was it was unacceptable to think that the lorry driver should have to drive his vehicle with it's offside wheels in the air, being that the narrowness of the road forced the lorry into the other lane, or at least it was forced into the other lane at the corner.

The blame always lies with the person who could have reasonably avoided the accident and NOT with the one who disobeyed the Highway Code, for example, someone steps onto a crossing when you, in a car, have right of way and you hit that person, if you could have stopped but didn't, then it's your fault. Therefore, the only question is what each person could have reasonably anticipated the other to do and this is where the ambiguity come in. If the lorry driver should have presumed that the motorcyclist would cut close to the centre line, then he should have slowed down or stopped. If the motorcyclist should have anticipated that the lorry would cross the line, then it's the motorcyclists should have given more room in his lane.

My feeling is that the Judge decided that the motorcyclist was fixated on his line through the corner, and didn't properly assess the situation, whereas the lorry driver could reasonably presume that since the motorcyclist had plenty of space in his lane, he would maintain a sensible distance from the lorry. Therefore, it's the motorcyclists fault.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 13:02


Richard Walmsley 2
I agree with TwentyTrees, Im a bus drive and truck driver ( and biker ), the highway code says HGV's can use what ever part of the road they need to complete a maneuver, looks like the biker was going to fast if he couldnt change his line to avoid an on coming truck, dont forget they are limited to 56mph ( uk ones )so he couldnt have been going to fast.
I feel sorry for the guy, looks like 50/50

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 13:22


scotsman418
Or the possibility is that that the lorry driver approached the corner to fast and took it wider than he should have to avoid possibly tipping his vehicle to bring it back within his lane? I've seen plenty of HGV/buses travelling way to fast through villages at 40mph or upwards, etc, to keep on a tight schedule and even around tight bends and so end up having take it wider due to them not caring about other road users!

So, it comes down to this that YOU must assume ALL drivers are IDIOTS and drive with extreme caution!

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 13:44


Bill Roberts
And here was me thinking that not keeping wholly within a lane was an offense and that bikes were permitted by law to use any part of a lane.
Should we get rid of lane markings altogether?

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 14:31


wavey
As with most things nowadays things are not black and white. However the party crossing the white line, in this case the truck driver, should have ensured that his actions did not put other parties at risk.
If the injured party had been a car driver I think the judge might have taken a different view. As Scotsman418 says "assume all drivers are idiots" and expect to be proved right.
My family have beeen in the trucking business for 50 years and are still amazed at the stupid things we see on the road.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 14:35


George's Shed
Was the biker turning left or right?

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 15:04


Andy Thomas
Holy agree about how difficult to proscute a cgae driver. I was hit by a cage driver on the wrong side of the road and when I say the wrong side I mean wholly in my lane and got a way with it saying under braking he lost control on oil.

But I did win the insurance claim although in my opinion it was way to little compensation.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 15:29


rockrocks
Basicly, the UK roads are unpoliced. Usually there is questions and heartache after serious events. The Police very rarely deal with foreign trucks offences, mainly due to the fact that in any incident - they have to refer the truck and driver details through their foreign embassies. It is just too time consuming for the UK Police. This is not the case abroard - where there is regular big fines and banning for foreign drivers who break the law there. Until recently, a lot of UK truck operators were registering their trucks abroad too avoid high UK road tax (alot cheaper abroad), and then had the added bonus that very little bother from the Police. It is only the insurance companies that have changed this situation, because foreign trucks are now classified has 'high' risk, and so charge 'extra' premiums for them in the UK.
My advice is - always use a video camera (like a Roadhawk). And do not rely on the law (legal system) to be fair and proper. Remember also, that most foreign drivers (lefthand drive vehicles) will instinctively drive near the center of the road until they gain experience of driving on the lefthand side.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 15:34


David Waugh
Don't get me wrong I love riding my Fireblade but all the time I get overtaken by bikers who will not stay in the line of traffic and who will go down the centre of the road down/ near to the white line. This to me is fraught with danger and is bad practice.

On another note a friend of mind had his car crushed by a foreigh HGV; the driver of the HGV could not see him as he pulled out to overtake & rammed my friend into the armco barrier under the wheels of the truck. The foreign driver could not speak english. A truck with foreigm plates ? Avoid them....

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 15:54


Maverick Renegade
From reading all the posts I have 2 main questions:

1: If the lorry was forced over the central lane due to lack of space, were there warning signs placed by the government (or relevant authority) to warn other road users of this? Surely there should of been either restrictions for certain sized vehicles or warnings to road users that large oncoming vehicles may be crossing the central line? Could the guy sue the government for a lack of warning or proper monitoring/assessment of the road and it's users?

2: If it was deemed that they were both liable, why is the ruling 100% in the truck drivers favour?? Surely it would be logical and decent to split the compensation 50/50. i.e. if the damages amounted to £500,000 then the truck driver's insurance should be liable for only £250,000 of that payment and the biker's insurance should be liable for the other half. If there's a murder and someone is involved but didn't actually commit the murder, they don't get convicted for first degree murder, they get convicted for being an accessory to murder. They don't get set free. Using the same logic, how can the court rule that they were both in the wrong, yet the truck driver is 0% responsible??

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 16:16


Maverick Renegade
Another thought: The Judge ruled that "A finding of negligence in this case would, to my mind, be to impose an unacceptably high standard on the driver.”

It should not be an unacceptably high standard of driving to be able to stay in your own lane. If it requires an unacceptably high standard, then that standard imposed on road users by the authorities that are in charge of the roads. This is blatantly admitting that the roads weren't suitable for the vehicle in question.

Why would it be an "unacceptably high standard" if the roads were suitable?

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 16:31


PLASTICROCKET Formby
Doe's it say if the wagon was right or left hand drive ? Makes a difference to the poisitoning of the vehicle if it's a left hooker

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 17:45


thoppa
Oh my, whoever is to blame, losing a leg and getting no compensation is just awful. The legal system is tragically unable to deal with real life, and as usual, the only winners are the lawyers.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 17:58


kendizx9r
he did not win his case because his solicitor was not good enough, simples

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 18:53


100Watty
Kendizx9r, I think you have the most likely answer here....if you are involved in a crash and have a claim, NEVER accept your insurance companies recommended solicitor. Some of these companies are utter rubbish and a qualified solicitor probably never looks at your file, only a part-trained claims handling numpty. Hire a specialist motoring/biking firm.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 20:00


bob whitworth
Pretty disgraceful. Pedal cyclists are treated even worse.

Posted: 15/05/2012 at 20:37


Rider Down
ppl. the claim was civil, under the doctrine of negligence - i.e. to sue the person for damages.

this is a seperate claim as opposed to getting charged for a traffic offence, and for the insurer covering costs. It's got NOTHING to do with traffic offenses...

This is a pay-day action. If its true that the road was too narrow, the judge is saying it's not enough to show negligence to the required standard.. as in the settled legal definition... "to be so negligent, that no reasonable person in the circumstances would have done so/omitted"...

if the road was so narrow that a big truck couldn't reasonably pass without being slightly over the middle line, what was he s'posed to do? stop and do a U-turn? (potentially more dangerous) - it was found that it was open to the driver to assume that a bike, or even a car, would hug the LHS in such a situation to avoid being clipped by oncoming large truck.

tellingly, even the trial judge who allowed damages found the rider to be CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT (again, another settled legal defense to negligence) This is relevant too in victoria as IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT EXTINGUISHES THE CLAIM. (see torts act 58 vic)

and the appeal court so found. This is where the trucking co's barrister's comment came in "the loss only occured as the rider was riding too close" - i.e. he argued that his contribution was so high as it ought extinguish the claim. (nexus doctrine) "the loss would not have occured but for the rider's actions"

so in the circumstances, where the truck, not prohibited from that road, and not able to reasonably make the corner without venturing somewhat over the middle line - can you say the driver was so negligent that a resonable person would not have done the same thing in the circs?

probably not.

claim dismissed.

Posted: 16/05/2012 at 05:48


peter cakes
I avoid trucks with foreign plates like they are on fire ever since one nearly had me on the motorway a few years back when I was overtaking him on my Hayabusa. thank fook the busa had enough grunt to pull me out of the twats way as he decided to change lanes to overtake another lorry just as I was making my overtake of him. I felt the side of the truck brush my left arm as I swerved and opened the taps....... a clear case of him not seeing me in his side rear view mirror due to him being sat on the left had side of his cab. Had I been on a slowere less powerful bike I dont think I would be here now telling you of it. Shook me up BIG stylee I can tell you.

Posted: 16/05/2012 at 08:33


kendizx9r
cheers 100watty just i've been there done that and won my case not just because it was not my fault it was also because my solicitor was a motorcycle rider and new the other party was making it up for his own benefit, you need some form of help on your side if no witness to it.

Posted: 16/05/2012 at 18:49


Hugh Jarse

This decision of the judge was and is a total disgrace. I still can hardly believe it.

For the future, it's about time that the UK got in step with the rest of the world and starts driving on the right. Norway did donkey's years ago, but the UK stumbles along doing things the oddball way. 

That poor biker and that appalling judge...it really is too much.


Posted: 16/05/2012 at 19:11


SlowInFastOut
Don't the police and the IAM teach you to move close to the centre line to increase your visibility to people emerging from T junctions? Could this advice now make these organisations liable?

Posted: 17/05/2012 at 19:04


KENNETH FULP
That is some serious relativistic thinking there. As we say here in the USA.....bullshit!! The fecking lorry was on the wrong side of the road...period. If he cannot navigate his vehicle safely while maintaining position in HIS lane, then he should go home and find another job. Whether is proximity to the center line or not, the motorcyclist remained in HIS lane and he has the right to the entire width of that lane. This is a miscarriage of justice; in fact I do not see any justice here at all. No one speaks for the common man anymore. It is all a rigged game going to the highest bidder. This is sad.

Posted: 18/05/2012 at 05:38


sexdrugs'n'rockingmole
Doubtless I will be unpopular here, but if the case had gone the other way, the following scenario is totally possible...

I was riding down the road towards a T-Junction. A bus was turning left into the road and strayed into may lane to do so, it being impossible to turn the corner without doing this. I rode straight into it. Gimme gimme gimme.

Posted: 19/05/2012 at 16:31


Harvey Wallbanger
People (especially those from other parts of the world)
Some of the roads in the UK have been around since pre-Norman times. They are narrow and have many bends. The courts accept this as fact and also accept that a modern truck may not fit entirely within a lane marking.

During driver training you are expected to be able to cope with narrow roads and if you do not make way for larger vehicles where required/expected, not only will you fail your driving test but you will commit the offence of driving without due care and attention / without due consideration for other road users.

A lane marking has little legal significance. If there is a vehicle straying into 'your' lane, you are not entitled to ram it.

Whilst the loss of various body-parts is unfortunate, it does not alter the determination of fault or award you $$$ when you should have been driving at such a speed that you could stop well within the distance you could see to be clear, or you haven't reduced your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards.

Posted: 19/05/2012 at 18:23


Rob Miles 2
We don't have the facts available to the court. However, I can certainly see a scenario where I can agree with this verdict. It is known that a lorry may use more of an inadequate road than marked if necessary, so long as he uses reasonable caution. If you do not know this, you are failing at an important qualification of your general driving authorization.

If you find yourself in a smaller, more maneuverable vehicle on a generally inadequate road, it is upon you to reduce your speed and position yourself for contingencies, not ride along the centerline at the limits of reflex and maneuvering envelope.

I can't believe this doesn't make sense to a posting majority.

Very often, cagers are behaving like dangerous killers. I don't see that this automatically applies in this case.

Posted: 22/05/2012 at 07:10


tjz1100
all the paranoid BS aside there is a simple lesson to be learned here. Keep your mouth shut and if you have to open it, admit to nothing. The ins and outs of this individual case aside, the guy admitted a level of liability, so he's ruined it for himself. He's obviously made a statement saying he could have been farther off the white line and so contributed to the accident.

As for all you self-righteous riders crowing about keeping to your lane, how many of you actually do, always, keep left in your lane? honest answers only. (I ride/drive around 20,000 miles a year and a large proportion of those are on the whole width of the road. My advanced driving tutor taught me this. But, if you do wander away from the left then you have to be careful. A vehicle crossing the white line IS NOT AN OFFENCE if road conditions dictate.This is how we are ale to overtake.

When my Dad was teaching me to ride he only gave me one really good bit of advice; ride as if every other road user is trying to hit you.

Posted: 22/05/2012 at 15:32


Steve Robertson
I do find these cases annoying, all it takes is for some legal bod to say " ...and I put it to you Sir, that you could have avoided this accident and trauma to my foreign speaking friend here by not taking up motorcycling in the first place, is that not the case Sir????"

I drive/ride around 40k+ a year and I've never had any form of advanced driving lessons, I try to exercise common sense for the most part and that has held me in good stead so far.

Interestingly I did get an advanced riding video some years back and the time this ex copper spent near on on the middle white lines was quite scary.

Posted: 22/05/2012 at 20:34


A Biker
Simple truth is, he lost his leg, he will have great difficulty getting a job and getting his life back to some sort of normal. Truck driver is probably now still driving and has his job, the insurance companies are still raking in the money.

Why don't they not just let him have the money he so clearly needs and was awarded in the first court case? ...
Because the greedy insurance companies want their greedy backers to have as much money as possible as dam the human consequences.

This case is simply about inhuman greed and disregard for the plight of others, maybe I’m unrealistic, but we all should be ashamed to be human, were just animals. Sigh.

Posted: 16/06/2012 at 03:20


Dibnah
Full judgement here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1017.html

All the legal experts neatly avoid
">
I should also mention another provision of the Highway Code which Mr Axon seeks to draw support from, namely paragraph 127, which states that when the broken white line at the centre of the road lengthens and the gaps shorten it means that there is a hazard ahead, and goes on to say "Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off." Mr Axon submits that the line was lengthening and the gaps shortening and that paragraph 127 therefore applied at the point of this accident. This was a matter not investigated at the trial and not dealt with in the experts' report, and for my part I would be unwilling in the circumstances to draw any conclusions simply from a study of the photographs.
<"
As soon as the lorry crossed the extended white line then 100% of the liability should have been with the lorry driver.

Posted: 01/09/2012 at 19:06

Talkback: Court overturns rider's crash compensation