A claim made by a man injured when he was knocked off his bicycle by a motorcyclist has been in the news lately after the defendant motorcyclist tried to argue that by not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, the claimant should have had the amount of compensation he received reduced. The motorcyclist’s arguments were ultimately unsuccessful and the bicycle rider received his full compensation, however the case raised some interesting points.
The accident in question took place in June 2005 in Brightlingsea, Essex. The bicycle rider was in the centre of the road about to turn right into the driveway of a house when the motorcyclist came from behind and crashed into him, knocking him off the bicycle and onto the road. The cyclist suffered serious head injuries, leaving him with no recollection of the events leading up to the accident. The motorcyclist, who himself suffered a broken arm, alleged that the cyclist had ridden out from a side road right in front of him, giving him no time to react to avoid the crash.
It was part of the counter claim made by the motorcyclist that had the cyclist been wearing his cycling helmet his injuries would have been less severe, and therefore some of the liability for the accident should be his. The basis for this assertion is a similar rule that affects car accident victims who were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of their accident. In claims where an injury could have been prevented had someone been wearing a seatbelt, it is common for a court to deduct 15 – 25% from a compensation award depending on the degree to which the injuries would have been lessened.
A cycling helmet, whilst always a sensible option, is not designed to protect the wearer against all types of accidents, and indeed in accidents above a certain speed, it will offer only slightly more protection from head injury than the wearer’s skull. In this particular case the evidence indicated that the speed of the collision was so great that even if he had been wearing a helmet, the cyclist would still have been seriously injured. Also, it was important to point out that as cycling helmets do not protect the whole of the head from injury, the fact that the cyclist’s injuries were to the back of his head was a factor, as it was unlikely a helmet would have protected this area.
In this particular case, the motorcyclist’s arguments were dismissed as it was unlikely that given the speed of the crash, and the injuries suffered by the cyclist, a helmet would have provided any additional protection. Therefore the judge in the case decided it was not appropriate to make a deduction from the cyclist’s compensation for not wearing a cycling safety helmet.
Call 0800 092 8586
Speak to one of our claims advisors about your claim.
