Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

A CYCLIST has been awarded more than $380,000 in damages after colliding with a taxi that "veered" in front of him during peak hour on a busy Brisbane inner city road.

More here:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 6521035410" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks InThe Woods - full decision Land v Dhaliwal [2012] QSC 360

Interesting that the insurance company admitted liability but claimed contrubutory negligence - dropped only after the evidence showed there was no basis for it

I was just glad that there wasn't a comments section.
Could you imagine the dribble produced by the masses

uppo75 wrote:I was just glad that there wasn't a comments section.
Could you imagine the dribble produced by the masses

+1


Seriously insurance companies should run a honey trap to catch out the haters and self confessed road rule breakers and deny them insurance or charge a hefty premium. I believe that in the UK if you lose points due to using a mobile phone whilst driving your insurance premiums skyrocket if you can get insurance at all. I'd like to see that here

My first thought is that would just lead to more people getting around without insurance .

Justice served !

Hopefully it will cover any medical needs for the injuries sustained !!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Riggsbie wrote:Justice served !

Hopefully it will cover any medical needs for the injuries sustained !!

And it only took 5 years

General damages $35,000
Past economic loss $81,352
Interest on past economic loss $8,437
Future economic loss $150,690
Past and future gratuitous care Nil
Past out-of-pocket expenses $13,157
Interest $1,350
Future medication $10,000
NIB refund $70,197
Medicare refund (rounded) $6,305
Travel $3,702
Future surgery $2,500

Don't like the tone of that article....

A CYCLIST has been awarded more than $380,000 in damages after colliding with a taxi that "veered" in front of him during peak hour on a busy Brisbane inner city road.

Sounds awfully like an implication that the maneuver was trivial, or even a spurious claim by the cyclist. The defendant has admitted full liability for deity's sake.

il padrone wrote:Don't like the tone of that article....

A CYCLIST has been awarded more than $380,000 in damages after colliding with a taxi that "veered" in front of him during peak hour on a busy Brisbane inner city road.

Sounds awfully like an implication that the maneuver was trivial, or even a spurious claim by the cyclist. The defendant has admitted full liability for deity's sake.

Eventually. This is from the judgment that find_bruce linked to:

In closing submissions, however, counsel for the defendants quite properly conceded that, in light of the evidence at trial, there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence against the plaintiff, and I was not asked to make any such finding.

(emphasis added)
You've got to wonder why they ever thought they were going to get that argument up if, at the end of the case they had to admit they had nothing to support it.

As for the tone of the article, well, years of reading the Courier-Mail and then wondering why I bother has lowered my expectations. Also, that was the exact word used in paragraph 1 of the judgment, so the journo may well have just repeated the description without any particular intent.

The wording of the article is absolutely pathetic. The newspapers are losing money hand over fist because there is simply better, less biased reporting out there. The fact that the editor saw fit to let the toilet clog up and wipe it on the final draft says a lot.

A better biased story would have been "finally a deadbeat taxi driver gets pinged, but insurance premiums skyrocket as a result... maybe we need to have more serious consideration about the people we let drive cars?"

high_tea wrote:

il padrone wrote:Don't like the tone of that article....

A CYCLIST has been awarded more than $380,000 in damages after colliding with a taxi that "veered" in front of him during peak hour on a busy Brisbane inner city road.

Sounds awfully like an implication that the maneuver was trivial, or even a spurious claim by the cyclist. The defendant has admitted full liability for deity's sake.

....that was the exact word used in paragraph 1 of the judgment, so the journo may well have just repeated the description without any particular intent.

Yes, but it is the use of the quotation marks suggesting in the common parlance, 'said so, but not really'

Minor point, and I know the Courier-Mail is just our good ol' Feral-Hun in tropical shirt and shorts.

Still prefer not have had the accident than $380k. Not worth it!