A cyclist who was 'doored' by a car passenger is attempting to make legal history by suing both the driver and the passenger in the High Court for £200,000.
Kevin Fallon, 48, was on his way to work in 2010 when a door opened on him in Dalston, East London.
Despite wearing a helmet, he suffered bleeding to the brain and says he still suffers headaches, mood changes, and low energy. The injury has also increased his risk of developing epilepsy.
Mr Fallon hopes to have a change in the law to a policy of 'strict liability' under which the motorist, as the less vulnerable road user, would be obliged to prove that he or she was not the cause of the incident.
Although it's called 'strict' liability, the principle is in fact of 'presumed liability', in that the person in control of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed to be more likely to have caused a collision.
“There are only a handful of countries in Europe which do not have a policy of strict negligence and the UK is one of them,” financial analyst Mr Fallon, of Walthamstow told the Evening Standard, “It is a civil law, which would state that the motorist has to prove that he did not cause the crash.
“The person in the passenger side opened the door in my path.”
Just last month we wrote about how a law firm in Scotland had launched a campaign to have the country’s civil law changed to introduce a system of ‘strict liability’ liability in incidents involving motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users such as cyclists.
The firm says that introducing the system it proposes would meant that victims would receive compensation more quickly, the burden on the courts would be reduced, and road users’ attitudes would change, with a consequent improvement in safety.
Add new comment
40 comments
Or you could turn this around and say "..if you"re presumed guilty because you were the injured person." Which is how it sort of works in this country now, the injured person has to prove *their* "innocence" (getting compensation for their injuries, etc). As well as recovering from their injuries (or sometimes, having to live with them for the rest of the lives as in this case). In fact if you going to use terms like guilt and innocence, the injured person has not only been found guilty but sentenced as well.
Justice is a bit late for the victims.
Whilst I have every sympathy for Mr. Fallon, 'strict liability' is not the answer and will only worsen public perception towards cyclists, enhancing the 'them and us' attitude.
It's innocent until proven guilty in this country and there should be no exceptions.
Let's focus on getting proper justice for victims of road collisions, where dangerous driving is too often classed as careless, defaulting in lenient sentencing.
I think you need to read this sentence from above:
"Although it's called 'strict' liability, the principle is in fact of 'presumed liability', in that the person in control of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed to be more likely to have caused a collision."
I think you need to read this sentence from above:
"Although it's called 'strict' liability, the principle is in fact of 'presumed liability'"
No one will be saying they are guilty without them having their say.
it does seem a no brainer to sell this to drivers in terms of HGVs vs cars. I doubt they'd realise the implications if has for cars vs bike (and even bikes vs peds).
+1 for Jonnyd
All power to you Mr Fallon. Strict liability needs to happen, and anyone who doesn't agree must simply not understand what it means. It's a crucial step this country needs to take to protect the vulnerable on our roads and paths.
WELL DONE Mr Fallon , let's all start a fund to help meet the expenses !
properly done with a 3rd Party Org. to avoid repeat of the situation that is occuring with Paul Kimmage's situation !
Strikes me that the Scottish campaign ought to focus on HGVs - an easier sell, thin end of (good) wedge.
Pages