Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

Crash cyclist seeks compensation

Started by OzCableguy · · Last activity · 11 posts · 1,607 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Australia and New Zealand
Published
11 March 2008
Last activity
19 March 2008
Original author
OzCableguy
Posts
11
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,607
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–11 of 11
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Taken from roadgrime.com.au. Originally posted 30/1/08

    *********************************************************************************

    Crash cyclist seeks compensation

    John Telfer claimed Mr Macpherson had responsibility for the group

    A cyclist is seeking damages from a fellow bike rider after claiming he
    failed to keep a proper hold on his handlebars before a crash.

    Lecturer John Telfer, from West Lothian, and teacher Gordon Macpherson were
    part of a group of enthusiasts who regularly met for road cycling outings.

    Edinburgh Court of Session heard that Mr Telfer, 49, was seriously injured
    during a group run on 15 June in 2003.

    He is now claiming £370,000 compensation from Mr Macpherson.

    The jury will have to decide whether the accident on the B8020 road near
    Winchburgh, in West Lothian, was caused by Mr Macpherson, who is from
    Livingston.

    They were told that damages have been agreed at £370,000 but that liability
    is disputed.

    I just remember an almighty crunch at the back of my neck and I lost
    consciousness for a period of time

    John Telfer

    Mr Telfer, from East Calder, said nine cyclists were taking part in the
    group outing which had seen them cross the Kincardine and Forth Road bridges
    before returning towards Livingston.

    He estimated he was travelling at about 25mph as the road levelled out and
    they approached the accident scene.

    He said Mr Macpherson and his son, Colin, were at the front of the pack of
    riders.

    His counsel James Campbell QC asked what he remembered next and he said: "It
    still goes through my mind pretty much every day. It is quite correct when
    people say that things slow down.

    "I saw Gordon Macpherson do this movement from left to right across the
    road. I remember seeing his hands go down to the side of the handlebars.

    "I got a clear view of when his hands came down and effectively lost control
    of the bike," he said.

    He recollected that Mr Macpherson lost control and came off his bike and
    other riders, who were ahead of him, also fell off.

    Lost control

    Mr Telfer said he had time to react and changed direction to try to avoid
    those who had fallen, but that took him onto a verge.

    "The verge was quite rough and although I was breaking, the bike reacted in
    a fashion that it pitched me over the handlebars," he said.

    "I just remember an almighty crunch at the back of my neck and I lost
    consciousness for a period of time. I regained consciousness and was unable
    to move," he told the court.

    Mr Telfer added that he had been introduced to the cycling group through Mr
    Macpherson, who lived close to him at the time.

    Lisa Henderson, junior counsel for Mr Telfer, told the jury it was agreed in
    the case that Mr Macpherson had cycled over a manhole cover, lost control
    and fell off his bike.

    But she said it was claimed on Mr Telfer's behalf that Mr Macpherson was
    holding his hands in such a way that he did not have proper control of his
    bike at the time. As a result his hands slipped off the handlebars and he
    lost control.

    She said it was also maintained that as he was at the front of the group he
    had a responsibility for the safety of it.

    The trial continues.

    *********************************************************************************

    The outcome

    A CYCLIST who sued a fellow bike rider after a debilitating crash told today
    how he had been left "shattered" after losing a £370,000 damages claim. John
    Telfer suffered head and spine injuries and said he was forced to retire
    from full-time work after he fell
    from his bike in a pile-up involving a group of cyclists.
    The 47-year-old former prison officer raised an action at the Court of
    Session against PE teacher Gordon Macpherson, who had been cycling in front
    of him.
    But a civil jury refused a claim that the accident on the B8020 near
    Winchburgh, in West Lothian, on June 15 2003, was caused by the other
    cyclist.
    Mr Telfer, who now works part-time as a lecturer at Jewel and Esk Valley
    College, said the jury's verdict had left him feeling "hollow" and said the
    case had left him with a legal bill of around £40,000.
    "I had a head injury and a spinal cord injury - the effects are going to be
    with me for the rest of my life. It's been my good fortune that the initial
    paralysis has subsided. This has gone a long way towards ruining my life."
    Mr Telfer, of East Calder, spent seven weeks in hospital following the
    accident and was forced to give up his job.
    "I can't quite believe that, given all the evidence that was presented, they
    (the jury] came to a majority verdict," he said.
    "That Mr Macpherson wasn't at fault for the accident is the hardest part to
    take really."
    Mr Telfer said he was now considering appealing the verdict.
    Damages had been agreed at £370,000 with the jurors left to decide on the
    issue of liability. But after 90 minutes they returned to deliver a verdict,
    rejecting the claim by eight to four.
    Mr Telfer and Mr Macpherson, 50, of Livingston, were part of a group of
    enthusiasts who met up regularly for weekend bike rides.
    On the day of the accident they were returning towards Livingston after a
    run over the Kincardine and Forth Road bridges.
    Mr Telfer said the other cyclist was riding in front of him when he lost
    control after hitting a manhole cover and came off his bike. He said he had
    time to react and changed direction to avoid the fall but went on to the
    verge.
    "Although I was braking, the bike reacted in a fashion that pitched me over
    the handlebars. I lost consciousness for a period. I regained consciousness
    and was unable to move," he said.
    He claimed that the incident was caused by the negligence of Mr Macpherson
    and alleged he was not holding the handlebars in a way that allowed him to
    maintain proper control of the bike.
    Mr Macpherson disputed this and said he was holding his handlebars correctly
    and that he could not have avoided the accident.
    His counsel, Andrew Hajducki QC, said cyclists voluntarily took on the risk
    of accidents and injuries by cycling in such groups without sufficient
    stopping distance between them.

    *********************************************************************************

    And
    http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/cyclist-loses-damages-case-against-fellow-cyclist-14473
    The Scottish Court of Session has ruled against a cyclist who was suing
    another cyclist after a crash on a group ride.

    The plaintiff in the case was John Telfer, who was asking £370,000 in
    damages from Gordon MacPherson. He claimed that MacPherson was responsible
    for a crash in a group of nine riders that occurred on June 15th, 2003.

    MacPherson and his son Colin were leading the bunch and had an impromptu
    sprint. MacPherson hit a manhole cover and crashed, bringing down most of
    the riders behind. Telfer was at the back, but couldn't avoid the downed
    riders and went over the handlebars. He injured his spine and suffered
    temporary paralysis as a result, and had to be retired from his job on
    medical grounds.

    Telfer claimed that MacPherson was not in full control of his bicycle and
    therefore at fault in the accident. But the jury in the case did not agree,
    and ruled against Telfer.

    --
    www.ozcableguy.com
    www.oztechnologies.com

  2. On 2008-03-11, OzCableguy (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:

    He estimated he was travelling at about 25mph as the road levelled out and
    they approached the accident scene.

    He said Mr Macpherson and his son, Colin, were at the front of the pack of
    riders.

    Aha.

    Quoted message said:

    His counsel James Campbell QC asked what he remembered next and he said: "It
    still goes through my mind pretty much every day. It is quite correct when
    people say that things slow down.

    "I saw Gordon Macpherson do this movement from left to right across the
    road. I remember seeing his hands go down to the side of the handlebars.

    "I got a clear view of when his hands came down and effectively lost control
    of the bike," he said.

    He recollected that Mr Macpherson lost control and came off his bike and
    other riders, who were ahead of him, also fell off.

    Sounds like they were all riding too close together.

    Quoted message said:

    Lost control

    Mr Telfer said he had time to react and changed direction to try to avoid
    those who had fallen, but that took him onto a verge.

    "The verge was quite rough and although I was breaking, the bike reacted in
    a fashion that it pitched me over the handlebars," he said.

    That's what they tend to do.

    I would suggest that any liability remains solely with the prosecution
    for riding too close. That's what we all do in a bunch, and it is
    excepted practice amongst consensual folk, and thus everyone takes
    responsibility for their own wellbeing.

    Quoted message said:

    Mr Telfer added that he had been introduced to the cycling group through Mr
    Macpherson, who lived close to him at the time.

    Aha! Obvious his fault then! My mistake!

    Are we sure Mr Telfer isn't a landshark himself?

    Quoted message said:

    A CYCLIST who sued a fellow bike rider after a debilitating crash told today
    how he had been left "shattered" after losing a £370,000 damages claim.

    Good legal outcome then.

    Quoted message said:

    John Telfer suffered head and spine injuries and said he was forced
    to retire from full-time work after he fell from his bike in a
    pile-up involving a group of cyclists. The 47-year-old former
    prison officer raised an action at the Court of Session against PE
    teacher Gordon Macpherson, who had been cycling in front of him.
    But a civil jury refused a claim that the accident on the B8020 near
    Winchburgh, in West Lothian, on June 15 2003, was caused by the
    other cyclist. Mr Telfer, who now works part-time as a lecturer at
    Jewel and Esk Valley College, said the jury's verdict had left him
    feeling "hollow" and said the case had left him with a legal bill of
    around £40,000.

    Don't take frivolous action against people when you are mostly
    responsible then. Furrfu.

    Personally, I also partly blame his lawyer for not saying "you don't
    have a hope in heck". I'd love for the legal system not to reward
    predatory lawyers.

    Quoted message said:

    "I had a head injury and a spinal cord injury - the effects are going to be
    with me for the rest of my life.

    That is quite unfortunate.

    Quoted message said:

    It's been my good fortune that the initial
    paralysis has subsided. This has gone a long way towards ruining my life."
    Mr Telfer, of East Calder, spent seven weeks in hospital following the
    accident and was forced to give up his job.
    "I can't quite believe that, given all the evidence that was presented, they
    (the jury] came to a majority verdict," he said.
    "That Mr Macpherson wasn't at fault for the accident is the hardest part to
    take really."

    Probably a Tory voter (explains why he was formerly a prison warden -
    working for Laura Norder). And why he doesn't understand self
    determination.

    Quoted message said:

    MacPherson and his son Colin were leading the bunch and had an impromptu
    sprint. MacPherson hit a manhole cover and crashed, bringing down most of
    the riders behind. Telfer was at the back, but couldn't avoid the downed
    riders and went over the handlebars. He injured his spine and suffered
    temporary paralysis as a result, and had to be retired from his job on
    medical grounds.

    Next we'll see TdF riders suing the yellow jersey when his feet clip
    out up a mountain?

    --
    TimC
    "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG

  3. TimC said:


    I would suggest that any liability remains solely with the prosecution
    for riding too close. That's what we all do in a bunch, and it is
    excepted practice amongst consensual folk, and thus everyone takes
    responsibility for their own wellbeing.

    Quoted message said:

    Mr Telfer added that he had been introduced to the cycling group through
    Mr
    Macpherson, who lived close to him at the time.

    Aha! Obvious his fault then! My mistake!

    Are we sure Mr Telfer isn't a landshark himself?

    Not only cycling too close, but he also lived too close to the defendant!!
    No case to argue at all.

    🙂

    --
    Cheers
    Peter

    ~~~ ~ _@
    ~~ ~ _- \,
    ~~ (*)/ (*)

  4. PeteSig said:
    TimC said:
    Quoted message said:

    Mr Telfer added that he had been introduced to the cycling group through
    Mr
    Macpherson, who lived close to him at the time.

    Quoted message said:

    Aha! Obvious his fault then! My mistake!

    Quoted message said:

    Are we sure Mr Telfer isn't a landshark himself?

    Not only cycling too close, but he also lived too close to the defendant!!
    No case to argue at all.

    If they lived near Winchburgh (where the accident happened) then they
    were probably also a bit too closely related. Surprising that the
    litigant couldn't stop in time though, those extra couple of fingers
    on each hand should give him a much better grasp on the brakes.

    Graeme (who used to work not far from there)

  5. Graeme Dods said:


    If they lived near Winchburgh (where the accident happened) then they
    were probably also a bit too closely related. Surprising that the
    litigant couldn't stop in time though, those extra couple of fingers
    on each hand should give him a much better grasp on the brakes.

    Pointer...? Ringman...? Pinky...? Extra...?

    *confused*............. CRASH!!

  6. Factually responsible for the accident. But not legally responsible.

    Might sound a bit strange to some people. Particularly those who always need to blame someone.

    Sounds like a legally sound decision by the court.

    And I agree at least partly with Tim about the lawyer. Except that we don't necessarily know whether the lawyer encouraged the client or the client insisted on proceeding.

    On the facts that we know (there might be others), if a client came to me and wanted to institute proceedings in these circumstances, I would tell them that they would have bugger all chance of winning and that the cost could be significant (ie if you like the house you are living in, don't count on having it after the trial). If they insisted, I would have their instructions in writing on their file along with an acknowledgement that I had told them that this was not an automatic guaranteed money-spinner.

    Still, you can't tell some clients.....

    Steve

  7. SteveA said:

    Factually responsible for the accident. But not legally responsible.

    Quoted message said:

    On the facts that we know (there might be others), if a client came to
    me and wanted to institute proceedings in these circumstances, I would
    tell them that they would have bugger all chance of winning

    although

    Quoted message said:

    Damages had been agreed at £370,000 with the jurors left to decide on the
    issue of liability. But after 90 minutes they returned to deliver a verdict,
    rejecting the claim by eight to four.

    he managed to convince 4. Maybe he should have sued whoever installed
    the manhole.

  8. OzCableguy said:

    "The verge was quite rough and although I was breaking, the bike reacted in
    a fashion that it pitched me over the handlebars," he said.

    I think he should sue whoever put a front brake on his bike. Imagine, putting a front brake on a bike for someone who clearly isn't able to use one.

  9. suzyj said:

    I think he should sue whoever put a front brake on his bike. Imagine, putting a front brake on a bike for someone who clearly isn't able to use one.

    I think his biggest problem was that he was breaking instead of braking. Then he wouldn't have broken and wouldn't now be broke.

    Ritch

  10. On 2008-03-18, ritcho (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:


    suzyj said:

    I think he should sue whoever put a front brake on his bike. Imagine,
    putting a front brake on a bike for someone who clearly isn't able to
    use one.

    I think his biggest problem was that he was breaking instead of
    braking. Then he wouldn't have broken and wouldn't now be broke.

    But would he still then be able to hope for his lucky break?

    --
    TimC
    Just keep in mind that when you are using TRANSFER, you are not
    programming, but hacking. All else follows logically from this
    premise, Grasshopper. -- James Van Buskirk in comp.lang.fortran

  11. Evan said:


    he managed to convince 4.


    Civil case so those 4 jurors only had to be convinced 'on the balance of probabilities', ie if they believed that it was 51% likely that the defendant was responsible, they would decide against the defendant.

    So mathematically, the plaintiff got between 17% and 66% of the way towards winning his case.

    If the jury decided quickly, it was probably closer to the 17% end. If they had more of a challenge coming to an agreement, it was probably heading the other way.

    (17% = 4 jurors who were 51% convinced + 8 jurors who were 0% convinced

    66% = 4 jurors who were 100% convinced + 8 jurors who were 49% convinced).

    Still, it sounds like it was the right decision.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.