![]() ![]() ![]() Liability was apportioned at 80% against the claimant motorcyclist and 20% against the defendant car driver. The judge ultimately decided that both the claimant and defendant were negligent for failing to anticipate the actions of other drivers. The judge stated that any road user who jumps a queue of stationary vehicles by filtering on the offside was “undertaking an operation fraught with hazard.” The judge noted that such an operation had to be carried out with great care, because it was always difficult to see “from the offside of a queue of stationary vehicles, gaps in the queue on its nearside from which traffic might emerge.” He advised the court that he was beckoned out by a signal from the driver of a milk tanker who had left the gap in the queue of traffic. The defendant had edged forward before attempting to turn right. He decided to jump the queue by filtering past on the offside, when he collided with a vehicle turning right out of a side road through the line of traffic. ![]() In this case, the claimant was riding his motorcycle on a busy London road and approached two lines of stationary traffic, which was held up at an upcoming junction. The 1966 case of Powell v Moody is still commonly used by insurers acting for defendants, even though the case is now over 50 years old. These cases are often complex, owing to unique circumstances combined with the nature and severity of injuries that can be sustained. This article will concentrate on some of the common causes of motorcycle accidents, look at contributory factors and discuss the decisions made by the courts. An increasing number of claims for motorcycle accidents are being brought before the courts in order to resolve liability. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |