A crowdfunding campaign launched to cover the legal costs of Robert Hazeldean has reached its £21,300 goal within 24 hours of being launched. The cyclist says that being able to cover the compensation claim is a huge weight off his mind, but there is still a chance he could be left bankrupt with the claimant seeking almost £100,000 in costs.
Hazeldean and pedestrian Gemma Brushett were both knocked unconscious in a collision at a junction near Cannon Street railway station in the City of London in July 2015. Brushett sued.
A judge this week found them both jointly liable for the crash, but Hazeldean has been unable to protect himself against a destructive costs award as he didn’t put forward a counterclaim himself.
“This was not because I was not injured, but because I do not advocate the claim culture,” he explained.
Thanking everyone who has donated, Hazeldean’s friend, Brittany Maher-Kirk who launched the crowdfunder, said: “We’re hopeful that the final costs won’t significantly exceed what the judge suggested this week (which was £21,300 in total) but I will leave this page up, and anything over the final amount will be donated to Action Aid.”
Hazeldean sponsored a child through Action Aid for 13 years, but due to the financial pressures around the case recently had to stop.
At the time of writing, almost £40,000 has been raised. You can donate here.
Hazeldean is currently awaiting a final hearing date at which the costs he owes will be decided.
34 thoughts on “Robert Hazeldean crowdfunding hits goal – but will it be enough?”
Glad this poor bloke is being
Glad this poor bloke is being helped out.
This case highlights the benefits of a govt run no-fault system like in New Zealand (the ACC). If you get injured you can’t sue an at-fault party for treatment costs / time off work but this is met by the scheme. In effect your treatment and salary is crowdfunded from every worker in NZ. I think this has prevented the emergence of a lawsuit culture like the USA and increasingly now the UK. It also cuts out the middleman (100k in legal fees to sort out 8k worth of claims, plus paying the judge and court costs).
Jackson wrote:
I feel sorry the guy and the disastrous financial position he has been left in, whilst the pedestrian walks away financially better off.
However, the way I interpet the incident from the reports I have to agree that he is in part liable. Not sure 50/50, but liable in part.
With that I’m off to renew my cycling insurance.
squidgy wrote:
Glad this poor bloke is being helped out.
This case highlights the benefits of a govt run no-fault system like in New Zealand (the ACC). If you get injured you can’t sue an at-fault party for treatment costs / time off work but this is met by the scheme. In effect your treatment and salary is crowdfunded from every worker in NZ. I think this has prevented the emergence of a lawsuit culture like the USA and increasingly now the UK. It also cuts out the middleman (100k in legal fees to sort out 8k worth of claims, plus paying the judge and court costs).
— squidgy I feel sorry the guy and the disastrous financial position he has been left in, whilst the pedestrian walks away financially better off. However, the way I interpet the incident from the reports I have to agree that he is in part liable. Not sure 50/50, but liable in part. With that I’m off to renew my cycling insurance.— Jackson
Sure, but the penalty for cycling a bit carelessly contributing (in some interpretations) to a minor injury should not be bankruptcy. The treatment costs should be borne by the healthcare system and any crimnal charge should be dealt with in the criminal system. In this case the only winners were the lawyers. And the answer shouldn’t be simply “get 3rd party insurance” because that’s basically a tax on everyone who rides a bike which ends up being paid out to lawyers.
The problem with this crowd
The problem with this crowd-funding is that the money raised is going to end up going to either the izombie ped or her lawyers.
I’d be happier if the cyclist donated all his assets to a relation/friend and then declared bankruptcy so that the money-grabbing pedestrian gets nothing.
hawkinspeter wrote:
But then he’d end up with a year in bankruptcy and 6 years of poor credit rating on top of the 4 years Rob and family have had this over their head.
Not worth it. If the crowd funding pays his legal bills then great, we’ve saved him another 6 years of shit.
The money should go to his
The money should go to his appeal. When he wins there will be no costs or fine
On some of the legal points:
On some of the legal points:
Unfortunately appealing doesn’t automatically mean you don’t have to pay up in the meantime (though you can ask the court to order that).
The court has discretion as to who pays what costs, but the general rule is that the loser pays the winner’s costs. In this case, the pedestrian was the only one who made a claim, and so 50/50 liability is presumably classified as a partial success on her claim. Had he also made a claim, then they would, to some extent, have neutralised one another. However, the fact that it was 50/50 will be a factor in the amount of costs the court will actually allow her to recover from him. The court also looks at whether the costs claimed are proportionate to the amount in dispute. So even if her lawyers do get the full £100k they’re claiming, it shouldn’t all come from him – some will come from her (or, more likely I would have thought, ATE legal costs insurers). Unfortunately he would have to endure further court hearings (and the costs of those) in order to have her costs assessed.
May not be much more than £10,000, which is the upper limit for the RTA fixed costs regime and the entry point for fast track claims. Not sure if the RTA scheme would have applied in any event because it’s for claims involving a motor vehicle.
Just her lawyers unfortunately. The taxpaying public pays for the judge and court. (Save perhaps for a small contribution from the claimant in the court fee they pay)
CXR94Di2 – couldn’t agree
CXR94Di2 – couldn’t agree more. Wish Cycling UK (or British Cycling) would get involved and support Robert as this feels like an important test of the law and common sense! However, I’m happy for my donation to his fund to be used for whatever is best, and I’ll donate more if it’s needed. Every cyclist needs to be involved in this. (Also useful to be a member of both cycing organisations as they provide legal cover for this sort of thing!)
was he not insured?
was he not insured? presumably that would help in a scenarion like this?
I have only read the article here, i havent read any of teh linked articles. Does he have the right to appeal. I agree with comments that BC need to get involved as this could set a hugely damaging precident
I am somewhat confused as to
I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other’s costs.
Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.
bikeman01 wrote:
There will be no change because these events are so rare.
If he had insurance, then the counter claim would have been made and the costs would have been 7000.
I don’t purport to understand a legal system whereby compensation of 4k is accompanied by 100k costs, but apparently, the final costs may be lower.
hirsute wrote:
I am somewhat confused as to how a ruling of 50/50 liability equates to one party being responsble for the other’s costs.
Secondly, if this sets a precident we can look forward to a massive ramp up of cyclist insurance premiums and the expectation that it will cease to be affordable for British Cycling and Cycling UK to include insurance as part of their nominal membership fee. As such their legal teams should be contesting this judgement.
— hirsute There will be no change because these events are so rare. …— bikeman01
Really? You think it will remain a rare occurance when word get round the win or no fee scum?
bikeman01 wrote:
The rare occurence being the collision and subsequent damage. Which is why premiums are low because insurers collect all sorts of data about accidents and payouts.
Apportioning liability between parties has been going on for donkey’s years.
I don’t really know why you write as though this is a new phenomenon.
If he had involved lawyers at the start, we know his costs would be no more that 7000 not 100000.
bikeman01 wrote:
But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.
And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.
Bungle73 wrote:
Exactly.
3rd party insurance is actually available for free for cyclists (in exchange for a marketing email once or twice a month) so there’s absolutely reason not to have it.
Rich_cb wrote:
But this is exactly the sort of thing that cycle insurance has always been inteded to cover.
And furthermore, had this chap had such insurance he probaly would have had the legal representation he should have had in the first place.
— Rich_cb Exactly. 3rd party insurance is actually available for free for cyclists (in exchange for a marketing email once or twice a month) so there’s absolutely reason not to have it.— Bungle73And I have yet to find household insurance that does not cover 3rd party liability.
hirsute wrote:
Well he lives in France now so it’s very possible that whatever household insurance (or whatever the French equivalent is) he has doesn’t cover cases abroad.
And I assume that while he may have been living in the UK at the time of the incident, whatever insurance he had then he no longer has so it won’t cover him.
And there’s a difference between liability (whch is the compensation she’s been awarded) and legal costs (which is the cost of the case being brought to court). She’s not going to see anything of the £100,000, thats the cost of the judge, the court, the lawyers etc.
crazy-legs wrote:
It would be as strange policy that did not cover you simply because the date of the claim was after the actual event and the actual event was within the time period of insurance coverage.
My policy states
If following an accident someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged anywhere in the world, during the period of insurance,we’ll cover the legal liability of you or your family as: occupiers of your home; private individuals.
The most we’ll pay for any claim arising from one incident, including claimants’ costs and expenses is £2,000,000. We may also pay other costs and expenses incurred with our prior permission, within this limit.
crazy-legs wrote:
She must have been very sure of herself to allow that level of legal cost to mount up.
crazy-legs wrote:
Having been through this myself (£29,000 down thanks!) but fortunately before it came to court because the insurance paid up at the first sense of ambiguity I can tell you its the house insurance you had at the time. Thats not to say he had some of course but a later move to France shouldn’t be relevant.
In my case I stopped and gave the f*cker first aid until the ambulance arrived. Different background this wasn’t an iZombie but it still ranckles, as we all end up paying via dearer insurance.
Bungle73 wrote:
But it could so easily have gone the other way and we’re not spouting off that all peds should have insurance are we?
The risk is that an appeal is
The risk is that an appeal is double or quits. If he wins, he has no costs. If he loses the costs will be significantly higher than he’s facing already. And he’ll definitely need to legal assistance (which may well need paying for) if he’s going to have any chance of winning.
Alternatively, I do wonder if he could launch a separate claim against her now for any damages he’s sustained based on the judgement. Her lawyers would probably argue abuse of process, but worth a look!
if a jogger travelling at 10
if a jogger travelling at 10-14mph had slowed down when confronted with someone moving into their path, shouted a warning, moved to get out the way but the other party move back into their path and collide with the jogger, there is no way on this planet would we be having this conversation on Runners Weekly.
This is bent as fuck, as above, money should go to an appeal because the judge clearly isn’t fit to make a fair judgement based on precedent.
If a jogger slows to 14kph
If a jogger slows to 14kph they should be talking to sports England. That would not be a bump, but being hit hard by someone running fast.
John Smith wrote:
Where does it say that that is the impact speed of whatever speed you’re quoting, use mph as per the judgement and lawful measurement in the UK.
The traveller who was on a cycle was approximated at moving between 10-15mph BEFORE impact not at the point of impact. They slowed from that whilst making deliberate efforts to avoid a collision. Jogging speed could easily be in that range, if we apply the rules in a different way to one group only then that is bias and discriminatory and IMHO unlawful.
Less than £5000 to the
Less than £5000 to the “injured” party, £50000 each to the lawyers. It’s pretty clear what selfish interests have led to the case being pursued. What’s saddening is that the judge and legal system isn’t supporting the public interest.
let’s hope that common sense
let’s hope that common sense prevails in the upcoming damages review and sets damages aagainst Hazeldean at t £0.01
bottechia wrote:
The case has been allocated to the fast or multi track. It seems, also, not to have been allocated to the road traffic accident fixed costs regime. Suggesting that the damages claim, while not yet assessed, is considerable.
Read a few comments on “The
Read a few comments on “The Law Society” Gazette website.
There are quite a few lawyers on there who seem to be very surprised by the level of costs, one mentioning that they would like to attend a detailed assessment, as they’ve often seen many costs awards substantially reduced and the claiming lawyers reprimanded.
I think the yoga woman’s money grabbing lawyers may have been hoping the cyclist would continue without legal representation and were trying to see how much they could get away with.
CaribbeanQueen wrote:
I wondered that myself I also wonder if it’s possible that the woman concerned did not enter into a no win no fee arrangement so she could be trapped too. I’m obviously feeling charitable today!
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I think this is quite likely. If she’s lawyered up by using a CFA or CCFA then the lawyers will push the costs up by using higher pay grade solicitors. She’s quite possibly insured too or taken out after the event insurance. But even then, 100k is incredible. A costs hearing and detailed assessment should see that come down hopefully. Costs have to be proportionate and justified. I hope Rob has a decent costs solicitor with him.
And yes, been there though not cycling related.
Called Direct Line about this
Called Direct Line about this this morning – confirmed that I’d be covered under home insurance because bikes are covered under that policy. Clearly well-prepped as he used the example of a pedestrian stepping off the pavement in front of me, so I’m guessing they’ve had a few calls!
Worth calling around I think.
And maybe worth Road.cc writing an article.
I know this has probably been
I know this has probably been discussed but is this not in the interests of a body like Cycling UK to take up, and at the very least appeal the original decision. Without hearing the detailed evidence it seems like the judge has erred in a point of law.
She used the reasoning that the pedestrian was already established in the road, which may or may not be the case, which has provided the basis for the fact that the cyclist was 50% at fault. But using logic, if approaching a pedestrian crossing with good line of sight, doing a fairly moderate speed and have someone step out in front of you and despite your best efforts you still cannot stop take evasive action after seeing the pedstrian step into the road then the pedestrian could not be argued to have been established in the road.
Secondly the reasoning that a cyclist should be prepared for pedestrians to be erratic is nonsense. Imagine the first case of an electric car hitting a pedestrian who blindly walks out onto the road. The chances of the car driver being found to be at fault are precisely Zero.
The point is the money grabbing ……….. (choose whichever expletive you want), got some high priced lawyers to rack up some case that any judge with any modicum of common sense would have kicked into touch in the first instance, but they managed to find someone who seemed to be living in cloud cuckoo land who thinks that by having both feet on the road a pedestrian has established themselves on the road.
I just wonder if there have been any cases where pedestrians have run across 3 or 4 lanes of traffic and been hit by a car, where the judge has went “the pedestrian was established on the road as they were in lane 2, and all drivers should expect pedestrians to behave in erratic manners therefore have some compensation”…………..
craigstitt wrote:
I think the real challenge here is although a bike is under the same laws of the road as a vehicle we all know that an emergency stop in a car is a far easier action to complete vs one on a bike, expectially taking into account the increased chance of personal injury due to the fact that braking hard and steering is completely different on two wheels vs four.
I believe that if a someone had driven their car in the same manor that this chap rode his bike then they would have been found completely at fault. Having said that the law about being established in the road is clear but very few drivers respect this when turning into side streets. The situation in this case is quite different to someone simply stepping off the pavement – this junction had many people crossing as the cyclist approached, he failed to moderate his speed appropriately (this is an uphill junction remember so simply freewheeling would have done that) and used his horn instead, only breaking at the last minute once it became apparent that the junction was not going to clear.
I’m not sure how the lawyers are money grabbing to be honest. They are being paid to provide a service. Just like any service you can choose who you use and even better than that, if you can’t afford them then the court will provide one for you.