26 September 2013

Crocodile Teeth Catch Bike



In August 2012 our client – Peter (not his real name)- decided to take a short cut to work through Richmond Park along a designated cycle route.

Peter entered the Park through Robin Hood Gate at about 8 o’clock in the morning.  It was a bright sunny day.   Until 10 years before the roadway at this point in the park had been open to one way traffic controlled by the use of a metal ramp across the road known as “a crocodile”.   When the access road was closed to vehicles the crocodile barrier was left in situ.

Peter was not familiar with the cycle route and approached a mini roundabout.  He looked up for traffic approaching when his front wheel was caught by the crocodile barrier and he was thrown forward off his bike and on to the road. 

He fractured his collar bone.

Had Peter been aware of the barrier he could have avoided it since it did not stretch the whole width of road.  

Peter instructed Dowse & Co.  We recognised that this would be a difficult case.   The accident happened in broad daylight and the barrier would have been seen by Peter had he been paying more attention to the road in front of him.  Further, it was possible that the Royal Parks would argue that the roadway in law was a right-of-way and that they were not liable for any defects on the right-of-way which might be a risk to people exercising their right. 

On the other hand, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, Peter had the benefit of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.   Under the Act if you have control of land then you must ensure that the land is reasonably safe for any visitor for the purposes for which they were permitted to be there.   In this case, Peter was riding on a designated cycle route where the warning signs were inadequate and where the barrier posed a foreseeable risk of injury to any cyclist who might collide with it.

Liability was strongly disputed.  However, within some weeks of reporting the accident the Royal Parks dug up the barrier and re-laid the road to make it safe.

The case did not go to trial and settlement was reached.  £3,500 damages was recovered.   Peter had made a quick recovery and suffered no loss of earnings, albeit he had to give up tennis for about 3 months.

While there was no admission of liability, it was clear that the Royal Parks accepted that they were risk of losing at trial, albeit they had a good argument for contributory fault on the part of Peter which would have reduced any compensation by a significant percentage.  The settlement reflected the likely finding of contributory fault.  The case illustrates that the law apportions responsibility and that there is not an all-or-nothing approach to awarding compensation. 

No comments:

Post a Comment