Judgement on Helmets?
burtthebike
legal technicalities, but it appears that the judge has unilaterally decided
on highly questionable grounds that a cyclist could be guilty of
contributary negligence for not wearing a helmet. Now, correct me if I'm
wrong, but this has never been established by the courts, and insurance
companies have never allowed it to be tested, so how come a judge can just
decide it without bothering with little things like evidence?
The report itself is extremely perplexing, with a statement that the cyclist
wasn't wearing a helmet, and then that the experts examined his helmet.
They experts seem to think that helmet standards were higher twenty years
ago, but they're actually lower now.
Can someone translate the legalistic gobbledegook into plain English please.
"Alert: Insurance Litigation Injury Risk.
2nd February 2009
Cyclists who fail to wear a helmet can be guilty of contributary negligence
Smith v Finch (2009)
This High Court judgment confirms that a cyclist who fails to wear a helmet
will be guilty of contributary negligence if the helmet would have prevented
all of his injuries or made them a good deal less severe.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams extended the principles set out by Lord Denning
MR in Froom & Others v Butcher to the wearing of cycle helmets. In his
judgment the time has now come when a failure to wear a helmet amounts to
negligence notwithstanding the absence of any legal requirement for cyclists
to wear one. He accepted that individuals were free to choose whether or
not they wore one. But if they failed to do so they might expose themselves
to a greater degree of injury for which they might be regarded as being
contributorily negligent, subject to the issue of causation.
The case before him concerned Robert Smith (S), a pedal cyclist, who was
involved in collision with a Yamaha 600cc motorcycle being ridden by the
defendant (F) in June 2005. S was not wearing a helmet and sustained
serious head injuries. He had no recollection of the accident and his case
was advanced on the basis of circumstantial evidence. F brought a
counterclaim with the matter proceeding to trial on liability alone.
Having found the defendant primarily liable, the court then turned its
attention to the issue of contributory negligence, given S's failure to wear
a helmet. S sustained an occipital fracture with an overlying extradural
haematoma and right temporal confusions which the court found were caused by
his hitting the ground. However, a frontal traumatic subarchnoid haemotoma
(which required surgical evacuation) was on balance caused by a contra-coup
effect or rapid rotation of the skull as S was propelled through the air,
causing blood vessels to rupture.
Expert evidence was called by both parties. Dr Bryan Chinn for the
claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant, both examined S's helmet
which was stated to be approximately 20 years old and offering a
significcantly lower level of protection than a modern helmet conforming to
European standards.
Dr Chinn's evidence was that neither S's actual helmet nor a modern one
would have afforded him any protection from the injury sustained due to the
speed at which S hit the ground, in excess of 12 mph. The court accepted Dr
Chinn's evidence on this basis. The judge recorded that both parties'
failure to call expert medical evidence amounted to a "fundamental
evidential omission". F would only be able to persuade a court that an
injury would not have occurred or would not have been so serious with the
support of expert medical evidence.
Whilst this was a first instance decision, the application of Froom v
Butcher principles to the wearing of cycle helmets is a welcome development.
As with all such case it is critical that the causitive consequences of the
failure to use protective equipment are demonstrated with both expert
engineering and medical evidence."
Just zis Guy, you know?
<burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> said in
<xrHhl.9818$v6....@newsfe25.ams2>:
>I was passed the following document at work today. I don't understand the
>legal technicalities, but it appears that the judge has unilaterally decided
>on highly questionable grounds that a cyclist could be guilty of
>contributary negligence for not wearing a helmet.
I don't know of any case where that has actually happened, offhand,
and in this case he says that the severity of the collision made the
lack of a helmet moot. But the defence were clearly under-informed
on the state of (conflicting) evidence, else they would likely have
argued that point.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
Martin
> I was passed the following document at work today. I don't understand
> the legal technicalities, but it appears that the judge has unilaterally
> decided on highly questionable grounds that a cyclist could be guilty of
> contributary negligence for not wearing a helmet. Now, correct me if
> I'm wrong, but this has never been established by the courts, and
> insurance companies have never allowed it to be tested, so how come a
> judge can just decide it without bothering with little things like
> evidence?
>
> The report itself is extremely perplexing, with a statement that the
> cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, and then that the experts examined his
> helmet. They experts seem to think that helmet standards were higher
> twenty years ago, but they're actually lower now.
The cyclist was wearing a 20 year old helmet, which may have been
designed to a better standard, but in 20 years will have degraded, so
will probably not be as good as a new helmet. ISTR that people who wear
helmets should replace them every three years, or whenever they get a knock.
It should be noted that the court accepted that the helmet would not
have protected Smith.
However the last paragraph is perplexing, it looks like it was written
by a third party helmet promoter (c.f. welcome development). I would
like to see the original court transcript or report.
Rob Morley
> Cyclists who fail to wear a helmet can be guilty of contributary
> negligence
It's possible, but it always has been - no cyclists have yet been found
contributorily negligent, no precedents have been set
>
> Smith v Finch (2009)
>
> This High Court judgment confirms that a cyclist who fails to wear a
> helmet will be guilty of contributary negligence if the helmet would
> have prevented all of his injuries or made them a good deal less
> severe.
The judge entertained the concept in this particular case, and gave the
defence the chance to show that a helmet would have helped. They failed.
>
> Mr Justice Griffith Williams extended the principles set out by Lord
> Denning MR in Froom & Others v Butcher
This judgement pertained to injuries incurred while not wearing a
seatbelt, before the days when seatbelts were compulsory:
//
Sometimes the evidence will show that the failure made no difference.
The damage would have been the same, even if a seat belt had been worn.
In such case the damages should not be reduced at all. At other times
the evidence will show that the failure made all the difference. The
damage would have been prevented altogether if a seat belt had been
worn. In such cases I would suggest that the damages should be reduced
by 25 per cent. But often enough the evidence will only show that the
failure made a considerable difference. Some injuries to the head, for
instance, would have been a good deal less severe if a seat belt had
been worn, but there would still have been some injury to the head. In
such case I would suggest that the damages attributable to the failure
to wear a seat belt should be reduced by 15 per cent.
//
> to the wearing of cycle
> helmets. In his judgment the time has now come when a failure to
> wear a helmet amounts to negligence notwithstanding the absence of
> any legal requirement for cyclists to wear one.
I think that's an over-simplistic representation of what apparently
happened in court.
> He accepted that
> individuals were free to choose whether or not they wore one. But if
> they failed to do so they might expose themselves to a greater degree
> of injury for which they might be regarded as being contributorily
> negligent, subject to the issue of causation.
"Might", not "will".
>
> The case before him concerned Robert Smith (S), a pedal cyclist, who
> was involved in collision with a Yamaha 600cc motorcycle being ridden
> by the defendant (F) in June 2005. S was not wearing a helmet and
> sustained serious head injuries. He had no recollection of the
> accident and his case was advanced on the basis of circumstantial
> evidence. F brought a counterclaim with the matter proceeding to
> trial on liability alone.
>
> Having found the defendant primarily liable,
It was the motorcyclist's fault.
> the court then turned
> its attention to the issue of contributory negligence, given S's
> failure to wear a helmet.
I'm guessing this means his failure to wear a modern helmet.
> S sustained an occipital fracture with an
> overlying extradural haematoma and right temporal confusions which
> the court found were caused by his hitting the ground. However, a
> frontal traumatic subarchnoid haemotoma (which required surgical
> evacuation) was on balance caused by a contra-coup effect or rapid
> rotation of the skull as S was propelled through the air, causing
> blood vessels to rupture.
That will be the rotational injury that there's no evidence a helmet
can cause ...
>
> Expert evidence was called by both parties. Dr Bryan Chinn for the
> claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant, both examined S's
> helmet which was stated to be approximately 20 years old and offering
> a significcantly lower level of protection than a modern helmet
> conforming to European standards.
>
> Dr Chinn's evidence was that neither S's actual helmet nor a modern
> one would have afforded him any protection from the injury sustained
> due to the speed at which S hit the ground, in excess of 12 mph. The
> court accepted Dr Chinn's evidence on this basis.
So the judge agreed a helmet wouldn't have helped anyway, because
they're only intended to reduce injury if you fall off at moderate
speed onto a flat surface.
> The judge recorded
> that both parties' failure to call expert medical evidence amounted
> to a "fundamental evidential omission". F would only be able to
> persuade a court that an injury would not have occurred or would not
> have been so serious with the support of expert medical evidence.
>
It's not enough to say "He should have been wearing a (better) helmet".
> Whilst this was a first instance decision,
It doesn't form official guidance for similar cases.
> the application of Froom
> v Butcher principles to the wearing of cycle helmets is a welcome
> development.
It's welcomed by motor insurers because they think they might get away
with paying lower damages.
> As with all such case it is critical that the causitive
> consequences of the failure to use protective equipment are
> demonstrated with both expert engineering and medical evidence."
>
Perhaps now we'll see some long overdue attention being given to proper
helmet research (as opposed to the spouting of unsubstantiated opinion).
burtthebike
"Martin" <marti...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:gm7kib$jpm$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> burtthebike wrote:
>> I was passed the following document at work today. I don't understand
>> the legal technicalities, but it appears that the judge has unilaterally
>> decided on highly questionable grounds that a cyclist could be guilty of
>> contributary negligence for not wearing a helmet. Now, correct me if
>> I'm wrong, but this has never been established by the courts, and
>> insurance companies have never allowed it to be tested, so how come a
>> judge can just decide it without bothering with little things like
>> evidence?
>>
>> The report itself is extremely perplexing, with a statement that the
>> cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, and then that the experts examined his
>> helmet. They experts seem to think that helmet standards were higher
>> twenty years ago, but they're actually lower now.
>
> The cyclist was wearing a 20 year old helmet,
"S was not wearing a helmet....."
Martin
"Dr Bryan Chinn for the claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant,
both examined S's helmet"
Very odd. I would really like to see a proper report.
burtthebike
> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>>> The cyclist was wearing a 20 year old helmet,
>>
>> "S was not wearing a helmet....."
>
> "Dr Bryan Chinn for the claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant,
> both examined S's helmet"
>
>
> Very odd. I would really like to see a proper report.
Me too, I've googled, but can't find anything.
Just zis Guy, you know?
said in <gm7ldl$rev$2...@news.motzarella.org>:
>"Dr Bryan Chinn for the claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant,
>both examined S's helmet"
'nuff said.
Henry Lockwood
wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:34:53 +0000, Martin <martin.d...@virgin.net>
> said in <gm7ldl$re...@news.motzarella.org>:
>
> >"Dr Bryan Chinn for the claimant, and Dr Nigel Mills for the defendant,
> >both examined S's helmet"
>
> 'nuff said.
>
> Guy
> --
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
> GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
I think, though I'm not sure, that "S's helmet" means "the helmet
owned but not, at the time of the incident, being worn by S".
HenryL
Martin
> I was passed the following document at work today.
It is being discussed at
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/court-in-shocker-common-sense-cyclist-injury-verdict
The detail seems to be:
> The court was required to determine liability in a claim for damages for personal injuries brought by the claimant cyclist (S) against the defendant motorcyclist (F) following a road traffic accident. S had sustained serious head injuries when his bicycle collided with F's motorcycle. S had no memory of the event and F was the only witness. The speed limit where it occurred was 30 mph. S's case was that F had ridden his motorcycle along the road at an excessive speed, failed to keep a proper look out and failed to see S, who was on the proper side of the road at all times. F made a Part 20 claim against S for personal injury, contending that he had not been driving at excessive speed, and that S had pedalled out of a side road into his path and had given him no reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision. Further, F claimed that S's injuries had been sustained wholly or partly because he had not been wearing a helmet, which was contributory negligence on S's part.
>
> HELD: (1) On the balance of probabilities, F had been travelling at a speed well in excess of the 30 mph restriction and the collision occurred as he tried to overtake S. He was entirely to blame for the collision by virtue of his excessive speed and his riding much too close to S as he tried to overtake. It was apparent that F had not told the truth about the collision: his account was designed to shift the blame. He had not given any credible and reliable evidence in support of his Part 20 claim or in establishing any contributory negligence on S's part to the circumstances of the accident. (2) It did not matter that there was no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear safety helmets because there could be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet might expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure, like the failure of a car-user to wear a seatbelt, would not be sensible and so, subject to causation, any injury sustained might be the cyclist's own fault
, Froom v Butcher (1976) QB 286 CA (Civ Div) applied. On the balance of probabilities, S had hit the ground at a speed greater than 12 mph so the wearing of a helmet would have made no difference to the injuries sustained. Moreover, the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would probably not have prevented S's injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head. Even if the impact speed had been low enough for a helmet to have afforded protection, F had adduced no medical evidence to support his case that S's injuries would have been reduced or prevented by his wearing a helmet. Accordingly, F had failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence.
My reading is that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, if
it is proven that wearing a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
Martin.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<henry.l...@cantab.net> said in
<b5c75517-e688-4e8f...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>I think, though I'm not sure, that "S's helmet" means "the helmet
>owned but not, at the time of the incident, being worn by S".
Dunno, but I do know Mills and his reputation.
Mike
But he obviously had a twenty year old one that he didn't wear and
didn't offer him any protection, but even if he had worn it there
would have been no reduction in his injuries so the case fell flat on
its arse.
If he'd had a new one and he'd not worn it then he'd have been stuffed
by the prosecution.
So, the morals of the story?
a) Don't get a helmet, or
b) Get an old helmet and don't wear it, or
c) Get a new helmet and wear it, but
d) If you get a new helmet and fail to wear it make sure that no one
knows you have a new helmet, or
e) find a lawyer, attach a concrete block to their legs and place in
very deep body of water
--
Squashme
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:29:39 -0800 (PST), Henry Lockwood
> <b5c75517-e688-4e8f-926b-859b78747...@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >I think, though I'm not sure, that "S's helmet" means "the helmet
> >owned but not, at the time of the incident, being worn by S".
>
> Dunno, but I do know Mills and his reputation.
>
Looks like the texting driver's defence team may have missed a trick
here:-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article2198487.ece
If the other motorist died from a brain injury, would wearing a helmet
have saved her?
Rob Morley
Mike <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> But he obviously had a twenty year old one that he didn't wear and
I wonder did he not wear it, or was the defence saying that it was
sub-standard and he should have been wearing a new one?
> didn't offer him any protection, but even if he had worn it there
> would have been no reduction in his injuries so the case fell flat on
> its arse.
>
> If he'd had a new one and he'd not worn it then he'd have been stuffed
> by the prosecution.
>
> So, the morals of the story?
>
> a) Don't get a helmet, or
> b) Get an old helmet and don't wear it, or
I knew I'd been keeping it for some reason. :-)
> c) Get a new helmet and wear it, but
> d) If you get a new helmet and fail to wear it make sure that no one
> knows you have a new helmet, or
> e) find a lawyer, attach a concrete block to their legs and place in
> very deep body of water
>
The defence argument that a helmet isn't designed to provide protection
to the degree that would have been required in this instance still
stands if he has a new helmet to current standards. I really don't
think the previous seatbelt judgement is relevant anyway - if a
seatbelt is fitted to a car then it's clearly immediately available for
use (their fitting to new cars became compulsory in 1965) but a helmet
isn't part of a bike and isn't always there in case you want to use it.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<492fo4toj8km42gtp...@4ax.com>:
>But he obviously had a twenty year old one that he didn't wear and
>didn't offer him any protection, but even if he had worn it there
>would have been no reduction in his injuries so the case fell flat on
>its arse.
Largely because neither side called medical evidence. But the
principal injury was a "contra-coup" closed-head injury, so the
judge was of the view that a helmet would have made no difference.
Two things leap out at me here: the assertion that a 1980s helmet
would offer "a significantly lower level of protection" than a
modern helmet - which flies in the face of statements by Brian
Walker, the UK's leading helmet tester - and the assertion that the
application of Froom v Butcher is a "welcome development" - I guess
it is if you are an insurer seeking to evade liability, but I don't
think that was what they meant.
I will wait and see what Julian Fulbrook has to say about this, but
I suspect that this judgment will be allowed to sit unchallenged,
but there will be an appeal in any case where the judge uses this
supposed extension of the principle to actually conclude
contributory negligence. An appeal is likely to be expensive and
contentious, and whether it would succeed or not is anyone's guess.
I suspect that if it went high enough they would eventually have to
accept that cycle helmets are simply not designed to withstand motor
vehicle impacts, but that is only my supposition (and possibly
wishful thinking).
raven
wrote:
Instead of trying to be clever with your posts and failing miserably,
why not just post one every day which says:
"I am a fuckwit - Squashme".
It would be just as interesting to other people.
Squashme
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 03:29:13 -0800 (PST), Squashme <squas...@gmail.com>
"This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use."
Regards
Just zis Guy, you know?
said in <20090203115755.0e2cac25@bluemoon>:
>I really don't
>think the previous seatbelt judgement is relevant anyway - if a
>seatbelt is fitted to a car then it's clearly immediately available for
>use (their fitting to new cars became compulsory in 1965) but a helmet
>isn't part of a bike and isn't always there in case you want to use it.
And - more importantly - the seat belt is designed and specified to
be effective in automobile crashes, while the bicycle helmet is not.
Rob Morley
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:57:55 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
> said in <20090203115755.0e2cac25@bluemoon>:
>
> >I really don't
> >think the previous seatbelt judgement is relevant anyway - if a
> >seatbelt is fitted to a car then it's clearly immediately available
> >for use (their fitting to new cars became compulsory in 1965) but a
> >helmet isn't part of a bike and isn't always there in case you want
> >to use it.
>
> And - more importantly - the seat belt is designed and specified to
> be effective in automobile crashes, while the bicycle helmet is not.
>
It might be relevant in a case where a motorist caused a cyclist to
fall off at low speed sustaining the sort of injury that a helmet is
(supposedly) effective against. Say he bled all over an expensive
suit that wasn't otherwise damaged, and wanted to claim for it.
Could the cyclist countersue on the grounds that he'd probably have
sustained a neck injury? :-)
David Hansen
<m...@privacy.net> wrote this:-
>>Looks like the texting driver's defence team may have missed a trick
>>here:-
>>
>>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article2198487.ece
>>
>>If the other motorist died from a brain injury, would wearing a helmet
>>have saved her?
>
>
>Instead of trying to be clever with your posts and failing miserably,
Your huffing and puffing fails to alter the fact that Squashme's
point remains unanswered.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
raven
wrote:
>On 3 Feb, 13:14, raven <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
I rest my case
raven
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:14:12 +0000 someone who may be raven
><m...@privacy.net> wrote this:-
>
>>>Looks like the texting driver's defence team may have missed a trick
>>>here:-
>>>
>>>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article2198487.ece
>>>
>>>If the other motorist died from a brain injury, would wearing a helmet
>>>have saved her?
>>
>>
>>Instead of trying to be clever with your posts and failing miserably,
>
>Your huffing and puffing fails to alter the fact that Squashme's
>point remains unanswered.
I must have read a different article from you - there was no relevance
to cycle helmets in the one I read.
Squashme
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 05:31:20 -0800 (PST), Squashme <squas...@gmail.com>
And as someone writes elsewhere in the ether:-
"Meanwhile, as you can see by Googling, m...@privacy.net remains the
number one choice of anonymous posters everywhere"
burtthebike
pm me.
After Guy's comment about Julian Fulbrook, I also downloaded a copy of his
paper about helmets and negligence, well worth a read, again, pm me.
"burtthebike" <burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xrHhl.9818$v6....@newsfe25.ams2...
Danny Colyer
> My reading is that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, if
> it is proven that wearing a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
That seems to match what I read on Bikeradar:
<http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250>
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
judithta...@privacy.net
<danny_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 02/02/2009 23:28, Martin wrote:
>> My reading is that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, if
>> it is proven that wearing a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
>
>That seems to match what I read on Bikeradar:
><http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250>
Excellent:
Cyclists who "expose themselves to a greater degree of injury" by not
wearing a helmet can now be found to be negligent,
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
--
Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman
Paul Luton
> My reading is that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, if
> it is proven that wearing a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
Suppose a pedestrian was involved in an accident, fell over and hit
their head. If the injury could have been prevented by wearing a cycle
helmet does the above apply ? If not why ? - neither cyclist nor
pedestrian are legally obliged to wear a helmet.
Paul
--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
bounder
<pa...@pluton.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>
>> My reading is that not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, if
>> it is proven that wearing a helmet would have reduced the injuries.
>
>Suppose a pedestrian was involved in an accident, fell over and hit
>their head. If the injury could have been prevented by wearing a cycle
>helmet does the above apply ? If not why ? - neither cyclist nor
>pedestrian are legally obliged to wear a helmet.
>
>Paul
yet
Daniel Barlow
> yet
Why stop there? Perhaps they should be obliged to sit inside a large and
heavy metal box
-dan
Martin
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:57:55 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
> said in <20090203115755.0e2cac25@bluemoon>:
>
>> I really don't
>> think the previous seatbelt judgement is relevant anyway - if a
>> seatbelt is fitted to a car then it's clearly immediately available for
>> use (their fitting to new cars became compulsory in 1965) but a helmet
>> isn't part of a bike and isn't always there in case you want to use it.
>
> And - more importantly - the seat belt is designed and specified to
> be effective in automobile crashes, while the bicycle helmet is not.
To quote Fullbrook quoting the Froom v Butcher case,
‘If the presence of the helmet would have
made no difference at all, then the damages should not be reduced. If it
would have
prevented his injuries altogether, they should be reduced by 25 per
cent. If the
presence of the helmet on his head would have caused a less severe
degree of injury,
then the damages ought to be reduced by 15 per cent’
Cycle helmets are simply not designed to help in a multiple vehicle
accident, so is Froom v Butcher is used when a cyclist is hit by a car,
and the cyclist is not wearing a cycle helmet, then the only sensible
conclusion is that there is no contributory negligence from the cyclist
for not wearing a helmet.
Martin.
burtthebike
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:57:55 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
>> said in <20090203115755.0e2cac25@bluemoon>:
>>
>
> ‘If the presence of the helmet would have
> made no difference at all, then the damages should not be reduced. If it
> would have
> prevented his injuries altogether, they should be reduced by 25 per
> cent. If the
> presence of the helmet on his head would have caused a less severe
> degree of injury,
> then the damages ought to be reduced by 15 per cent’
>
>
>
> Cycle helmets are simply not designed to help in a multiple vehicle
> accident, so is Froom v Butcher is used when a cyclist is hit by a car,
> and the cyclist is not wearing a cycle helmet, then the only sensible
> conclusion is that there is no contributory negligence from the cyclist
> for not wearing a helmet.
Succinct and logical Martin, I can see why you're not a high court judge!
:-)
judithta...@privacy.net
He does have a PhD you know - so he's not daft.
--
"I've examined all the evidence I can
find, and I have been unable to find any benefit."
"They are demonstrably a bad thing."
Burtthebike on Cycle Helmets