Court overturns rider's crash compensation

From Visor Down:-


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.”


Some background to the circumstances:



The accident occurred on a narrow country lane. The Defendant’s (Kubas UAB) left hand drive HGV was being driven with its offside wheels on and slightly over the centre white line, when there was contact between the HGV’s fuel tank and the Claimant (Whiteford) motorcyclist’s right leg, causing an amputation. The Judge found primary liability established subject to a 50% reduction for contributory negligence. Kubas UAB made no offers to settle either before or after the trial. 


The Court of Appeal substituted that it had been reasonable for the HGV driver to give himself a reasonable amount of room; particularly when to have driven on or close to the edge of the road would have created risks of its own. There should have been no problem for the Claimant motorcyclist taking the proper line around the bend without colliding with the HGV. The facts were not such as to establish a breach of duty by the HGV driver: that would impose an unacceptably high standard.


I don't know whether this occurred on a RH or LH bend, but thinking about the line we encourage our riders to take (the "proper line"?), he would either have had good visibility of the oncoming hazard, or been well out of the line.


Thought provoking stuff!