The ACC vs the UK version

Forums › Off topic › The ACC vs the UK version

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#251373 22-Jun-2019 09:18

Just wondering, is this joke of justice https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london the kind of thing that ACC prevents from happening here

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

nzkc

1634 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

#2262318 22-Jun-2019 09:48

On the face of it this looks like one of those "should never have gone to court" scenarios. As always there's going to be more to the story than reported. For me, the concerning aspects are the comments from the judge who admitted both were equally culpable but because only one made a claim they get it all. I'm almost wondering if the judge is trying to set up a reason to appeal!

What I'd love to know before deciding which way I sit in the judgement is who was actually at fault here. Did the cyclist run a light? Did the pedestrian just walk out without looking (which is certainly implied by the article). Either way this decision potentially sets a dangerous precedent. I'm certainly glad the decision is not here! The ACC has helped us to avoid some of these scenarios.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2262321 22-Jun-2019 09:57

I saw a related article which said she looked up and tried to back out of the way but he veered in her direction. Presumably he wasn't trying to get her, maybe there was other traffic, other obstructions, maybe he panicked, don't know. I personally don't see why this cyclists duty of care mentioned doesn't also apply to a pedestrian as well. Also can see his point of view about blame culture and rushing to the nearest lawyer for everything.

And of course its certainly obvious, unusually, who profits the most from this.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2262411 22-Jun-2019 11:26

You need to be pretty certain you are going to win your case or have deep pockets if you take or defend a case in the UK High Court. On the face of it this case looks like knock for knock (she wasn't looking, he couldn't stop in time) so either could have won.

The costs for even a short case are mind boggling.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#2262414 22-Jun-2019 11:38

rb99:

I saw a related article which said she looked up and tried to back out of the way but he veered in her direction. Presumably he wasn't trying to get her, maybe there was other traffic, other obstructions,

Pedestrian shouldn't have walked in front of traffic, so is predominantly at fault for creating a situation where others need to take evasive action.

It must have been difficult to prove the cyclist did not try hard enough to stop. Traffic accidents happen very quickly and people tend to react instinctively.

Maybe he thought she would keep walking, and veered in the opposite direction but then she changed direction too.

I find this a very strange outcome.

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#2262418 22-Jun-2019 12:11

The pedestrian was described as "one of a throng of people". Maybe there were others on the road leaving the cyclist no option to swerve.

In other local news a wrongful dismissal case $1.8M employer costs/$549k successful worker costs. Something is wrong

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2262501 22-Jun-2019 14:58

Both the cyclist, Robert Hazeldean, a garden designer, and the pedestrian, Gemma Brushett, who works in finance, were left unconscious after the rush-hour collision in July 2015.

The judge, Shanti Mauger, said both were equally to blame for the incident on a busy junction near London Bridge, but only Brushett was entitled to a payout because she had put in a claim and Hazeldean had not.

Brushett, who also runs a yoga retreat, was awarded £4,161.79 in damages after the judge ruled that a 8mm scar on her lip did not detract from her “very attractive” appearance, but Hazeldean was told to also pay the legal costs of the two-day case, estimated to be as much as £100,000.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, ACC prevents this sort of thing.

Pity, though, ACC has started to avoid paying people at all though.

Friend had a medical misadventure, as it's called, and despite surgeon admitting error, it still took 9 years to win her fight against ACC

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2262815 23-Jun-2019 11:53

OTOH, if this was a matter where insurers were involved, the costs on both sides (and the decision as to whether/how to conduct the case) would rest with them not the individuals.

One positive aspect of that, versus the ACC model, is that because drivers require car insurance, if they are shown to cause accidents (or get caught speeding etc) then their is a direct financial impact (often very significant) on their premium the following year and potentially on their ability to get insurance at all. This does exert a measure of control on behaviour and attitude which is missing under the ACC system IMV.