what can I expect from a civil court hearing?

[Mondeo Man]

Date through. I have a witness, he has a witness. The only thing at stake is my pride.

To me, it's a day off work. Not losing any sleep over it. Should I be?

Background. Bike filtering. Car pulling out from slow moving traffic for right turn (witness has said: no indicaters). Bike + tarmac = oh shit.

I'm slightly astounded that a fairy routine accident is going to court. Seeems much ado about nothing.

I'm kinda looking forward to my day in court, as although I'm a quiet fuck at times, I do have my George Galoway moments when people annoy me, and I'm hoping for the opportunity to rant and rave a bit.

[Im-a-Ridah]

Ranting is probably better for TV, might not impress a judge very much though.

Wear a suit.

[Imonster]

1)

Circumstances are slightly different, though you're not going to point this out Davis v Schrogin 2006 in the Court of Appeal - have a read of this and present it to the judge well, or let your brief do it if you have one. The defendant was arguing that there had been contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist:

https://www.toppingpartnership.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=17048&d=101&h=350&f=351

Edit: Just reading through the official transcript of the case, which I can post but it will be looong for a post on here. Seems Lord Justice Hughes' decision was based primarily on whether Davis had a chance to avoid the U turning car, and therefore perhaps the actual circumstances could be quite relevant to you. It was also noted that the defendant could not possibly have looked to his right before commencing the manoeuvre.

"On those facts the judge found first that the defendant was negligent in making his U-turn without looking properly, or indeed at all, to his right. There is not and cannot be any challenge to that finding. Indeed; that the defendant was negligent in that way was conceded at the trial. The judge found that the claimant was not to blame. He held that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident."

"He had indicated in the course of argument that his first reaction to the evidence was that the claimant was perhaps travelling faster than he should have been, but after argument and further consideration he concluded that that was not a legitimate criticism. But in any event he held that even if the claimant had been travelling appreciably more slowly than he was, it would have made no difference, because he had been right on top of the point of accident when the defendant first did anything to excite anxiety. In other words the judge held that even had there been any excess speed, it was not causative of the collision."


"but in any event if there had been that kind of time for the claimant to react, it would have meant that for most of 100 or 200 yards the defendant was to be seen emerging and that the claimant had simply ridden straight into him. The judge was plainly right, as it seems to me, to say that that was simply not plausible."

"There is, as it seems to me, simply no basis for challenging the judge's finding upon causation. Once it is held, as the judge was plainly entitled to hold, that the claimant was so close to the point of impact that he could not avoid the collision, then there is simply no basis for any finding of contributory negligence."

2)

Take the relevant parts out of the below letter and present them after...


Ref- Accident {date & time}

Further to our previous conversations I feel it may make matters clearer by reference to the Highway Code. I shall compare my road position and manoeuvre with that of the other driver. You will see it is abundantly clear that I was doing nothing wrong and that the driver is entirely to blame.

My Circumstances

I was slowly overtaking a stationary line of traffic.

I refer you to rule 71 of the Highway Code in the section "Rules for Motorcyclists" which reads as follows:

71: Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.

A number of important points arise from this rule.

1. Note the use of the word WHEN as emphasised in the rule. It does not say "Do not overtake traffic queues" (or words to that effect), or suggest that it is an inappropriate course of action to take. It is clearly not a prohibitive instruction (see for example rule 74 which give prohibitive instructions). This clearly envisages that motorcyclists may, in the normal course of riding, overtake traffic queues.

2. I had already checked my mirrors and glanced behind to make sure nothing was overtaking the traffic queue already.

3. It was only the fact that I was progressing relatively slowly, in order to check for pedestrians who may be crossing between the vehicles making the accident much less serious than it would otherwise have been.

Before I move on, it is probably worth referring to the General rules for motorcyclists set out in rules 67 to 69. Again, I have reproduced these below.

67: On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. Helmets MUST comply with the Regulations and they MUST be fastened securely. It is also advisable to wear eye protectors, which MUST comply with the Regulations. Consider wearing ear protection. Strong boots, gloves and suitable clothing may help to protect you if you fall off.

68: You MUST NOT carry more than one pillion passenger and he/she MUST sit astride the machine on a proper seat and should keep both feet on the footrests.

69: Daylight riding. Make yourself as visible as possible from the side as well as the front and rear. You could wear a white or brightly coloured helmet. Wear fluorescent clothing or strips. Dipped headlights, even in good daylight, may also make you more conspicuous.

You will note that:

1. I had complied with rule 67 by wearing protective clothing, which again helped reduce the seriousness of the accident.

2. I had complied with rule 68.

3. I had complied with rule 69 by using dipped headlights. I always ride with dipped headlights as it is considered good practice and safer to do so.

Accordingly, the only conclusion which may be drawn from the above is that I was riding my motorcycle safely and as envisaged by the Highway Code. I cannot, therefore, be to blame in any way for the accident.

Mr Xs Circumstances

I now turn to Mr Xs driving manoeuvre.

I shall compare his manoeuvre to two fairly similar manoeuvres; setting off from rest as he was stationary and making a right turn.

Setting Off From Rest

This is governed by rule 135 of the General Rules for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:

135: Before moving off you should

use all mirrors to check the road is clear

look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)

signal if necessary before moving out

look round for a final check.

Move off only when it is safe to do so.




Check the blind spot before moving off

It is quite clear that Mr X failed to undertake all, or more likely any, of the requirements given that my body was level with his drivers door when he made the manoeuvre.

Turning Right

This is governed by rule 155 of the Road Junction section for Using the Road. This is reproduced below:

155: Well before you turn right you should:

use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you

give a right-turn signal

take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right

leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible.

The first point to note, however, is that Mr X was not turning right as I approached. He was stationary in a queue of traffic for a red light. Clearly, Mr X does not have the patience to wait for lights to change so decided to take a different route by turning right. He chose to make this decision as I was level with him.

Again, however, the emphasis of the first two requirements is on observation and signalling. As set out above, Mr X failed these on both counts.

Accordingly, the only verdict which can be reached from the above analysis of Mr Xs manoeuvre is that it was undertaken without sufficient care and attention to myself and other road users.

Conclusion

Mr X was stationary and I took all reasonable care to overtake a stationary vehicle. I checked before doing so, no right indicator on the car, no mirror checks carried out by Mr X, no wheel turns to indicate movement, and the car remained stationary so I proceeded to overtake.

Mr Xs lack of patience to wait in a queue to move clearly made him decide to take a different route. The issue here is he pulled out without mirror checks or signals whilst I was LEVEL with him by the drivers door. Not only is this driving without due care and attention, how Mr X could not HEAR my engine next to him, or be aware of movement right next to him is clearly indicative that he was not concentrating on what was going on around him.

Mr X is young and appears to only have had his licence a short while. But this does not excuse him for not making the proper checks - what if I were a pedestrian or pedal cyclist? More substantial injuries could have been caused by his inattention.

As shown above, I have followed the road rules clearly and exactly and am in no way responsible for this accident. If Mr X had made all the checks required as shown above or been paying attention he would have been aware of my presence and not moved until I had passed, in which case this accident would not have occurred.

I trust this is sufficient to pass to his insurers..

regards etc etc etc

Conclusion

And after all that, then they'll likely point out that you were overtaking at a junction and it will go 50/50 anyway

Oh yeah, don't shout, be respectful and do wear a suit as above. Just present the facts.
____________________
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[shereen]

[Imonster]

Aye...though in fairness I wouldn't have thought he'd take that point as a relevant one for his particular circumstances.

If I were him, I'd focus more on the Court of Appeal ruling anyway with just a couple of points from the letter - I just couldn't be arsed to edit that one down too
____________________
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[shereen]

[swampy]

[Imonster]

[shereen]

I was on the back of my ex's bike, he was filtering past slow moving traffic along a road with no overtaking restrictions, car turned right on us without indicating or checking his mirrors.

We had to go to court. The ex was found to be 60% at fault the car 40%.

We had no say in the matter and we were advise by solicitor not to argue with the decision.

Go figure...........
____________________
"The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had"

[The Shaggy D.A.]

[shereen]

[sickpup]

[Imonster]

Cameramen covering cycle races being a case in point...
____________________
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[Oldie]

Good luck anyway

[yambabe]

What to expect? Well it's not a criminal procedure, so it's formal but not too formal if that makes sense.

You and the other guy and the witnesses will have to swear to tell the truth etc and you will then be in fron of the judge. This may be in a main court room but is just as likely to be in a small room with just a couple of tables and chairs.

The judge will have read both statements, and those of any witnesses. The burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderence of the evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt so the judge will probably already have an idea in their head of which way they expect to rule.

Imonster's stuff below is great, but will be of no use in court as you cannot submit evidence that has not been previously lodged and seen by both parties. It should have gone to the insurance company ages ago and may have avoided the case getting this far. If a date has set that means a case has been made and a defence made and a judgement cannot be reached on these two pieces of evidence alone.

The judge will ask you, the other party and the witnesses questions. They may ask you to describe the whole event from start to finish or they may just ask you questions based on the statement you have submitted. Be prepared for either.

Be polite, stay calm and stick to your statement.

Length of time is difficult to asses, could be 10 minutes or a couple of hours. The judge is likely to give you a judgement there and then once they have heard all the evidence which wil then be backed up with an official court order.

HTH.
____________________
Sod falling in love, I wanna fall in chocolate.

[shereen]

[sickpup]

[shereen]

[sickpup]

[CB77]

It will be a massively underwhelming experience. You will go away thinking "Oh, that wasn't as bad as I thought. Hmm. Wonder what's for tea." Then you will go home.

[lihp]

[Nick 50]

Not sure why there is so much emphasis on what the Highway Code states, it is is only a Code and not a Statute.

You have no lawful obligation to do as the Highway Code states unless the points are covered in Statute Law somewhere.

[shereen]

[neil.]

[unitynotsocri...]

Its a standard for many claims to go to civil court.
had a bump a few years ago.front brake cable on a lifan snapped as i was braking for stationary traffic.upshot was £200 damage,5 mph slight bump in Corsa tailgate and rubber tyre mark on rear wing.unfortunatley for me it was an asian female solicitor.
Got a civil summons,she was claiming £10,000 for whiplash and a garage estimate of £1200.She got it.my insurer just rolled over and paid.had the last laugh though.i went out with my expensive camera at 4 am and filmed the car thoroughly and the video is timestamped and shows that the garage fiddled the insurance company.It has'nt had a new rear subframe/floor and bootpan.
met my accident solicitor from a crunch in march last year.in that case a woman who lives over the road from a busy garage,located on a four lane rd (2 lanes either side) pulled out from the forecourt,across the two lanes and t boned me,no observation ,no indicators.fucked my spine ,hip and brain injury.
The police investigated and she came up with two witnesses,after the police 'had words' with the witness's they declined to be witness's(phone data/location tracking probably)The 'witnesses,both were neighbours said i was doing about 70mph +(restored cg125 HAHA) .they wanted to put her on a refresher course so she wrote and harrassed the cheif constable,claiming she was being victimised.All the 'evidence' clearly shows she 's negligent,so after a year of denial my solicitor has sent her a civil summons,like the one you've got .A civil summons,as most court proceedings is a last resort.

If you were 'filtering' over the line,i.e.over middle of the road, it could be seen as negligent.if you were in your proper lane you should be fine.Its easy to say but just treat it as a procedure,ranting and raving will just mess it up and give the impression that bikers are...well bikers!!,be calm,you may not even be asked to speak.

Should i post the video showing how a solicitor has been involved in fraud ?or call at her house and give her a copy and ask for a 'contribution' to my playboy lifestyle fund.
after that first minor bump i stopped doing ANY work,community film/music with 'ethnic' minorities .
make sure your solicitor is a motorcycle specialist .
____________________
nearly a normal tax paying tosser.......with ferrileness suzi100,cg125,cb125scb100n,cb175,cd100,cj250t,kh250,c15,125 bantam,super 6,rickman gs750,xt500,250rs,dt175,lifan125,dolomite1850,metro,Morris220ld,morrisfg,leyland princess,range rover,corsa,vw camper .now struggling with legs. MORE ORDER = MORE CHAOS