A crowdfunding campaign has been launched to cover the legal costs of a cyclist involved in a crash with a pedestrian who was looking at her mobile phone as she stepped into road. The judge found both parties equally liable for the collision, but by not putting forward a counterclaim, Robert Hazeldean has been unable to protect himself against a destructive costs award in the same way that the claimant has.
Pedestrian Gemma Brushett and cyclist Robert Hazeldean were both knocked unconscious following the collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015.
Brushett, who sustained a minor head injury and what her lawyer described as “post-traumatic amnesia,” sued Hazeldean, and Judge Shanti Mauger found them both jointly liable for the crash.
The judge called Hazeldean ‘a calm and reasonable road user’ but the ruling means that he must pay Brushett compensation and legal fees. She is seeking almost £100,000 in costs.
The personal injury team at Levi Solicitors which is now acting on his behalf said that this amounted to “a total abuse of process.” The amount indicated by the judge was £10,000.
While he was living in London at the time of the incident, Hazeldean has since moved to France.
“The case has cast a shadow over our new life in France and left our future uncertain,” he said. “Covering the costs and the compensation is going to exceed £20,000 and will leave me bankrupt.
“I can only hope that the focus on this case highlights the vulnerability of cyclists, both physically and against the courts, and that it might help reform a legal system that appears to leave certain road users disproportionately exposed.”
Emma Farrell, head of Levi Solicitors’ personal injury team, explained: “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally. He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
Hazeldean said he delayed seeking legal assistance due to a lack of knowledge and concern about the costs.
“I feel that most cyclists would not have appreciated the consequences of not taking the opportunity to put forward a counterclaim which meant that I was unable to rely on the legislation in the same way that the claimant has to protect myself against a destructive costs award.
“This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture. Had I had legal representation at the time of preparing my defence, I would have taken those steps to protect myself.”
The court has ordered Brushett to pay Hazeldean’s costs for a scheduled third hearing.
You can find the GoFundMe page raising funds for Hazeldean here.
61 thoughts on “Cyclist found partly liable for crash with pedestrian facing bankruptcy after claimant seeks almost £100,000 in costs”
Bankruptcy is the answer.
Bankruptcy is the answer.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Is it?
According to the DM, he is France now, so maybe Brexit will come to his aid.
“would have been limited to a mere £6,690”
“If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim”
And we wonder why the World hates lawyers!
I’d offer a hundred quid towards a car, if he simply runs her over and kills her his costs will be reduced to about £200
I’m still at a loss to what
I’m still at a loss to what the cyclist did wrong except be on a bike on the road.
john1967 wrote:
As far as I can see: he braked and sounded his horn and then went to go behind her; in the meantime, she looked up, saw him, and leapt backwards toward the traffic island she’d stepped off without looking. They were both knocked unconscious, but she lawyered up first.
Basically – he has been penalised for not being accurately able to see all possible futures in the multiverse like the bloke in Men in Black 3…
I think
brooksby wrote:
That’s the best reply I’ve heard to the people who say he should have predicted what she was going to do, calling it “roadcraft”, as though you can predict everything and in time to react…
john1967 wrote:
He should have avoided a collision though that might be a lot easier to say than to do. Also, he should have counter-sued, though I think the woman was a piece of shit for suing when in my opinion (and most reasonable people) she was 100% at fault.
I’m surprised that he had no
I’m surprised that he had no form of third party liability cover such as through a house insurance policy.
I’m not surprised that he has come a cropper in our legal system. I learned long ago that the notions of fairness and justice play no part in court processes. The law is a game played by solicitors and other actors. The witnesses, plaintiffs and the accused are merely the game pieces who pay for it.
Someone is clearly taking the proverbial in asking for £100,000 costs.
I’m absolutely baffled by
I’m absolutely baffled by this. Can the case be appealed? The 50:50 verdict just seems entirely incorrect and at odds with what the judge said. Seems like open-season on cyclists.
The idiot walked out into the road without looking while distracted by her phone, then darted back in front of the cyclist trying to avoid her, they were both injured and she was blatantly entirely at fault and the cause for the collision, but he’s the one who has been sued and has to pay out?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Both the judgement and the sentancing here seem, not just suspect, but as biased as can be.
In no universe where adults are responsible for their own actions could anyone reasonably think it was even 50% the cyclist’s fault, maybe 10-20% max!
But even if we do assume that it’s equal blame, that doesn’t explain why this poor guy is being forced to pay £1000’s even up to £100,000 if they were equally to blame?
This is a scary precident, but I’m not sure what we can do, maybe write to your MP?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
No, really? Regrettably, the way forward seems simple enough: be insured and always sue.
Disgusting outcome.
Disgusting outcome.
I suppose a lesson for us all
I suppose a lesson for us all to join a cycle club/association that includes third party insurance and legal cover in its subs.
How come costs were not 50:50
How come costs were not 50:50 as well?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I believe that it’s because he was defending a claim aganst him, without making a counter claim himself.
When he was found to be 50% responsible, that’s enough to have failed in his defense and be liable for the other sides costs.
As the pedestrain was 50% to blame, if he had made a claim, she would also have lost her defense and could be responsible for his costs. In reality, under those circumstances the judge would probably rule that instead of paying 50% of each others cost you just pay your own.
I’d be interested to know, if
I’d be interested to know, if someone steps out in front of a car without looking, does the law blame the driver?
I am staggered that the judge in this case decided the blame was shared… stepping into traffic without looking is no more blameworthy than sounding an alarm, slowing down and attempting to avoid a collision. It does suggest an attempt (by that judge at least, if not the ‘authorities’, to discourage perfectly legal cycling on the roads by way of frightening cyclists off them.
It also disgusts me that the law in this country penalises moderation (i.e. not instantly suing everyone you meet) and rewards legal aggression. Doesn’t surprise me of course, but it does disgust me.
PurpleDog wrote:
The information isnt clear about what amount of time was available, but the judge ruling reads that the cyclist chose to go around the pedestrian rather than just stop. Because he chose to sound his horn and continue around the innatentive unpredicatable pedestrian he has been ruled partially liable.
Was it has fault? No.
Could he have done more to prevent the stupid pedestrian being hurt? sadly, yes (based on how the ruling reads)
Does this make it open season on cyclists? No.
Does this make it open season on people who just continue with dangerous acts because they hope you will continue in a certain direction and thus leave you space? Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying ‘but you had enough space’.
STATO wrote:
Stopping was an option because there was no one behind him?
Dangerous acts? Yes, in the case of the pedestrian.
How are any of those examples equivalent to a pedestrian ignoring red lights and staring at their phone instead?
STATO wrote:
“Probably not but it should, its the same as a car cutting you close without leaving 1.5m+ room for you to avoid potholes or objects in the road and saying ‘but you had enough space’.”
No it’s not the same – please refer to the laws of physics and if that’s too much for you perhaps just the fact cars kill nearly 2,000 people in the UK each year and bicycles struggle to make it to 1 every year.
The potential for harm from a car is magnitudes more – the fact you can’t see that clearly shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
PurpleDog wrote:
Would have been easier for
Would have been easier for the cyclist if he’d killed her.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Tell that to Charlie Alliston
Can’t this decision be
Can’t this decision be appealed? If the law favours stupid people then there’s something seriously wrong with the law. We all need to be accountable for our actions.
Crowdfund an appeal not to pay the fine.
If I see someone making a
If I see someone making a move toward stepping in the road, or even already in the road I shout “stay still” to them. Hopefully they hear and don’t move so I am able to anticipate them not moving and take the best course of action (in front of behind of them). Shouting “don’t move” means they may only hear the move and jump in one direction or another. Same as you don’t say “don’t panic” and use “keep calm”…
Also, it may help my defence if I have shouted a command and they have not listened – plus by shouting other people look so there are witnesses.
SurreyHiller wrote:
I prefer to shout “Oi!!” as it’s easy to get a lot of volume and its aggressiveness makes people suddenly look up.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“Wait!” is another clear one. I tend to favour verbal warnings now over a bell. No warning noise is foolproof though – often I find people look up to work out where it’s coming from, but still continue on their path. However, at least it means I have both hands covering the brakes just in case.
Like a game of Asteroids, Do
Like a game of Asteroids, Do we all not treat everything as vectors, many objects moving at different speeds, in different directions & we’re all safely calculating a way through?
Walking or running through a crowd, cycling or driving through traffic. Everyone is fine if everyone keeps doing what they’re doing … Its when this changes, someone stops (or jumps back in this case) when accidents happen.
KarlM77 wrote:
This made me think of an incident last week. A man started crossing the road from the opposite side to me. He was a good distance in front of me, but crossing slowly. I judged that on our respective vectors, he wouldn’t complete the crossing before I got to him, and we were probably on a collision course. So, there being no traffic beside / behind me, I pulled further towards the centre of my lane while holding my (moderate) speed in order to arc safely behind him while he finished crossing. At this point, he stops in the middle of the road, dances back and forth in front of me as if playing chicken, and motions as if to throw his cigarette at me, complaining that I was riding too fast and nearly hit him. While telling me this, I am stationary, 6 feet in front of him, having been able to stop in plenty of time in the face of this madness. I think he was pissed.
*EDIT – stationary (oh, the shame)*
Would being a British Cycling
Would being a British Cycling member of helped in these circumstances? What cover does their legal cover give?
Also in this case the only person who blames the cyclist is another cyclist!
I use a very loud “Mind
I use a very loud “Mind Yourselves, Please” in a newspaper seller/costermongerish manner, especially when passing through that strange crossroadish bit in the middle of Reading where they have removed the traffic lights, it’s odd but the peds tend not to step out in front of the buses and taxis.
Sometime in the last couple
Sometime in the last couple of decades we’ve made a choice, as a society, that mobile phones provide so much convenience (and generate such incredible profits) that users shouldn’t have to take full responsibilty for their negative aspects. You can see it even in totally pedestrian environments like shopping malls—smartphone zombies walking along, completely relying on everyone else around them to take care to avoid them. And the thing is, everyone does. It’s the new norm. Crowds part like the seas before Moses, just so that a teenage twit can tweet to their twittering friends without stopping, or a bewildered middle-aged person can suddenly halt and peer at their device for 30 seconds before heading off in a different direction, all without any attempt to assess their surroundings. The same choice was made decades earlier with motorcars. But bicycles, while reasonably popular in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, never quite reached that point. So, yes, we’re going to held liable, because we choose to use a piece of technology that requires too much effort for a critical mass of people to adopt it in order to rewrite the accepted public behaviour. And that’s what informs judges’ decisions in cases like this, not logic.
handlebarcam wrote:
It’s a good point – and there are pedestrian on pedestrian injuries as a result of headless mobile use. Does that mean pedestrians need to have personal liability insurance in case they walk into someone and cause a minor injury? It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a pedestrian could be killed in such a scenario – knocked into the road, or fall and suffer a head injury.
handlebarcam wrote:
Interesting point, though I don’t think you can quite compare peds-with-phones to drivers. The latter technology adds mass and momentum as well as causing a loss of awareness of the surroundings (due to reduced visibility and hearing, plus insulation from concequences), that would not otherwise be present.
The former brings only the loss of awareness part, but doesn’t in itself make the user more lethal.
It does occur to me, on reflection, though, that perhaps this case is as much about how the legal system depends on how much money you have as it is about modes-of-transport. Surely if both were responsible, and both were injured, there should be a parity of outcome? But becuase one party appers to be quite wealthy (city worker?) they were in a position to employ expensive lawyers to get a payout from the other.
Generally it seems to me that an awful lot of what passes for moral judgments are just about relative power. Across a lot of issue, things get judged as moral or not depending on the degree of power of the parties involved (so tempted to start going on about Boris Johnson at this point).
The oddly predictable thing
The oddly predictable thing here is that the cyclist has been penalised for failing to stop, yet drivers use the defence of “If I slow down too quickly m’lud because of the low winter sun I’ll get rear-ended m’lud” and get away with it time and time again. Coming to a full stop on a bike is dangerous – very easy to fail to clip out for example or lose balance. Basic lack of understanding of safe cycling behaviour by the judge.
Time and time and time again drivers get away with “she just stepped out in front of me”, when it is nearly always safe to come to a full stop in a modern car, and requires next to no skill because of ABS and traction control.
For just one example look at this article (and related links) from Guildford – the outcome being “drivers are incapable of driving safely so we’ll spend millions on a bridge and put railings everywhere”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-36847754
Freemotorlegal cover you when
Freemotorlegal cover you when on a bike on a public road for legal cover. Not 3rd party, just legal costs.
https://www.freemotorlegal.co.uk/
In case anyone is interested,
In case anyone is interested, the claimants firm is https://twitter.com/hardwickelaw. Hopefully they will put out a statement of some kind.
Both the judgement and the
Both the judgement and the sentancing here seem, not just suspect, but as biased as can be.
In no universe where adults are responsible for their own actions could anyone reasonably think it was even 50% the cyclist’s fault, maybe 10-20% max!
Listening to LBC Radio a couple of days ago even Nick Ferarri, who normally thinks cyclists are guilty of just about every ill known to man. Had to admit just that 10% was as much as he could go.
I though that in order to win a civil case you had to prove on the balance of probabilities that the other party was to blame for your loss. I wouldn’t have thought 50/50 satisfied that.
Illustrates the dangers of
Illustrates the dangers of those who think self representing when they have no legal knowledge is a good idea. The costs will be because as the losing party he has to cover legal representation and court costs, whereas with a counterclaim, based on the 50/50 decision he would have been awarded some damages from the pedestrian side and therefore cannot be held for full legal costs for both sides.
rliu wrote:
albeit he didnt self represent, as theres a quote from a Levi solictor firm that only suggests he didnt engage them early enough to issue a counter claim that would have limited legal costs, and someone with legal background needs to explain how that works, though Im still not sure if the 100k is the claim of costs from the claimant, or the courts actual agreed payout.
Awavey wrote:
albeit he didnt self represent, as theres a quote from a Levi solictor firm that only suggests he didnt engage them early enough to issue a counter claim that would have limited legal costs, and someone with legal background needs to explain how that works, though Im still not sure if the 100k is the claim of costs from the claimant, or the courts actual agreed payout.— rliu
I’m sure in one of his interviews he said he specifically didn’t want to get into US style litigation – even though he’d been knocked out and injured too – but that the pedestrian had no such qualms (works in finance, probably knows a lot of lawyers). Only later did he find out that NOT issuing a counter claim meant he’d be liable for all the costs if he lost.
Does this actually set a legal precedent? If a cyclist actually hits a pedestrian, no matter what the circumstances, from now on, then they were demonstrably not a good and careful cyclist (judges words IIRC) and therefore liable?
brooksby wrote:
it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists – drive to the conditions, and if you can’t stop in the distance you can see is clear, you’re going too fast.
So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge’s comments.
ConcordeCX wrote:
That doesn’t really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars.
You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.
hirsute wrote:
it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists – drive to the conditions, and if you can’t stop in the distance you can see is clear, you’re going too fast.
So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge’s comments.
— ConcordeCXThat doesn’t really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars. You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.— brooksby
if 5-10 mph is the appropriate speed for the conditions then that’s what it is. Tough shit.
According to the reports both people were knocked unconscious. Therefore he was going fast enough to knock them unconscious – why are you wibbling about medical evidence?
ConcordeCX wrote:
I suspect he is stating what medical evidence do you have that the unconsciousness was down to speed. There are lots of reasons for people to go “unconscious” and for varying amounts of time. In this case it might well have been the bodies going rigid after sudden trauma (see fainting goat syndrome), it might have been hit heads causing grogginess, it might have been anything but speed is definitely not the deciding factor.
Anecdotally, I went “unconscious” when my wife pinched me behind the knee once. I was sitting on a chair, she was on the floor, she pinched the leg to get me back for something I said and I woke up 2 seconds later on the floor. Never knew exactly why and has never happened again. Nothing to do with speed at all.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I’m arguing the stop in the distance you can see is about what traffic is ahead of you on the same road at the same time. Hence if the user in front stops, you should be able to stop, if you go round a bend, you shoudl eb able to stop and not hit something.
I don’t agree that you shoud be abel to stop for an yuse coming from the side or where they are supposed to giveway, otherwise we would all be going through a traffic light junction at 10 in case someone jumped red.
You also claimed that he must have been going too fast as thye were both unconscious. I’m askingfor medical evidence of such a connection. Perhaps they were unconscious because they head hit the kerb or their heads clashed. I have seen pelnty of high speed crashed in the TdF but yet to see someone be unconscious as a result.
See also AlsoSomniloquism comments.
hirsute wrote:
it seems to me that this falls under the same general advice as given often to motorists – drive to the conditions, and if you can’t stop in the distance you can see is clear, you’re going too fast.
So if he was going fast enough that the collision knocked them both unconscious, that seems to me rather fast for conditions where pedestrians are ambling around with their faces stuck in their phones, and I suspect this is the thinking behind the judge’s comments.
— ConcordeCXThat doesn’t really work though. If we all used the roads so we could stop in the distance we can see is clear, we would only be going 5-10 mph just in case someone pulls out of s side road or runs into the road between parked cars. You are going to have to come up with some medical evidence to substantiate your claim about being unconscious and speeds.— brooksby
So when are we introducing a blanket 15mph speed limit for urban roads?
brooksby wrote:
Wales is moving to a 20mph default.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48188233
brooksby wrote:
So when are we introducing a blanket 15mph speed limit for urban roads?
I’d hope people don’t travel much more than that around residential estates.
As to 30 to 20 on normal roads – I don’t know. There is a small amount of evidence that this has caused more injuries, although I’d eb interested to know the actual speeds any vehicle was travelling at, as anecdotal evidence is that 20 is ignored.
hirsute wrote:
As to 30 to 20 on normal roads – I don’t know. There is a small amount of evidence that this has caused more injuries, although I’d eb interested to know the actual speeds any vehicle was travelling at, as anecdotal evidence is that 20 is ignored.— hirsute
Not just anecdotal
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6363507/Government-study-reveals-hardly-motorists-obey-20mph-speed-limits.html
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Thanks for thatt.
Here’a link to the slight evidence
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/20mph-zones-introduced-to-make-roads-safer-lead-to-rise-in-traffic-deaths-a3721776.html
But ‘Reductions in fatalities and injuries were seen in the lower speed limit zones in central Bath, but the worrying increase was seen in rural areas and smaller towns.’
How fast were those vehicles going ?
hirsute wrote:
Good question.
It is also a microcosm of one of the Helmet debates. People assume they are safer so take more risks, in this case crossing the road without determining the speed of the approaching vehicle properly and as it is labelled 20, that is the speed they must be doing. Sounds a bit victim blaming though but as it is a Tory councilor……
hirsute wrote:
The first comment on the thread on that article casts some doubt on the claims in the article itself. I guess in general one can never really trust newspaper reports of anything involving statistics. Probably shouldn’t entirely believe anything of that nature till either Ben Goldacre or R4’s “More Or Less” has taken a look at it.
Edit – have to say the article (of unknown ‘provenance’) linked to in that comment seems to make a solid argument that the data doesn’t really show a change of any significance, either way.
brooksby wrote:
It would have to be in the High or Appeals court to set a precedent. Decisions in lower courts can’t.
Many years ago I used to
Many years ago I used to teach people to ride motorcycles (before CBT and multi part test).
The local road safety officer was wheeled out for the start of each course for the lecture about road safety and the obligations for road users generally. He was ex traffic police before anyone asks.
His words were ‘If you are using the road on a wheeled vehicle and you hit a pedestrian you had better have a VERY good reason for the accident.’ This was the early ’80s and the word accident could be used quite freely. He followed up this advice by recommending the packing of a small bag for your court appearance as you would not be going home for a while.
This is why shared paths are
This is why shared paths are a waste of time. Any cyclist who’s used one will attest to encountering pedestrians ambling down the cycle specific part of the path with not a care in the world. I’d rather take my chances on the road.
It seems that whenever there
It seems that whenever there is a decision to be made these days – we always seem to get get it wrong, and this is a blindingly unfair and wrong decision by the judge.
Come on Roadcc this guy needs some help to counter challege this decision – don’t let this story drop off your front page/top stories until there is a fair outcome for Hazeldean.
The decision needs to be overturned and he should not have to cover ANY costs.
It seems that whenever there
It seems that whenever there is a decision to be made these days – we always seem to get get it wrong, and this is a blindingly unfair and wrong decision by the judge.
Come on Roadcc this guy needs some help to counter challege this decision – don’t let this story drop off your front page/top stories until there is a fair outcome for Hazeldean.
The decision needs to be overturned and he should not have to cover ANY costs.
Perhaps the Judge would like
Perhaps the Judge would like to give us a demonstration showing us what the cyclist should have done to avoid hitting the pedestrian, eg – riding at 3mph expecting a pedestrian to walk out into the road or stopping dead from about 15 mph.
kingleo wrote:
Isn’t it obvious? The cyclists should have got off, bowed to all the pedestrians and then carefully walked his bike through to the other side. He should repeat this every time he encounters a vehicle (stop, dismount, move bike to side of the road, bow to the motorist and apologise for any inconvenience) or pedestrian or any sort of obstacle.
Where a bike lane is blocked by road works, he should stop and wait for the roadworks to be finished before re-commencing his journey.
Also, he should employ a person with a white flag is to walk in front of the bicycle and a person with a red flag behind. They are there partly for warning other road users but mostly to physically restrain the cyclist should he attempt to ride faster than 4mph. Oh and he needs a number plate as well. Obviously.
kingleo wrote:
Ultimately, the problem with this case is the same as it ever was: we all know damn well that if he’d been driving a car and she’d followed the crowd out into the road while glued to her phone, there is no way in this reality that it would have gone to court in this way, nor that she would have won like this.
It is the fundamental unfairness of this which … I don’t know: “grinds my gears” (?)
brooksby wrote:
Yup. Though I wonder if it’s possible it could have turned out like this with a driver hitting a pedestrian, _if_ the pedestrian had been an affluent City worker type and the driver wasn’t legally clued-up?
Either way it’s an example of how little the workings of the legal system have to do with justice. Much of it is a power game.