Pillion sues Biker....

[Andy C]

i was listen to radio today (was local sussex radio as couldnt get radio 1) and heard on the news that a pillion is sueing the biker.

The facts they said were that the bike had skidded after an overtake and the pillion has suffered brain damage and the biker wasnt insured, is didnt mention whether biker was hurt or not (think the report was quite bias though)

when i heard this i was really in two mind whether he was right or not, on one hand he has suffered because of someone else riding but on the other hand he got on the bike in the first place,

i thought maybe someone on here might give some valid reason whether its right or wrong...

also vote!
____________________
99 RS125 --> 02 SV650s --> 03 Speed Four --> 92 RXS100 --> 93 CB400sf --> 01 CB600f Hornet

[White Noise]

think its wrong to sue the biker, unless they lied to you about the riders licence/insurance/riding like a nob. they where happy to get on the bike, so they should expect the consequences whatever they maybe!
WN
____________________
Buy my wife: 96' Yam XJ600s (Diversion)
Wing Commander White Noise - SE Clique
Riding Tip #86: See God, then back off a bit: Problem is i haven't seen god yet, just a close up of tarmac on revett straight

[SoND]

It's the pillions own fault for getting onto the bike.

He should have known and understood the risks before even thinking about getting on.
____________________
Go back to bed - You have no rights - "Streetfighters ~ Mainstream motorcycling's crackwhore sister."

[Rookie]

They weren't forced onto the bike, and should accept the possible consequences. If the bike crashes, there's just as much chance that the rider will end up as bad as the pillion.

Idiot, like the rider in this instance.

[dodsi]

When I take pillions I ride much more sensibly than I would than if I was by myself.

Now If I took someone on a bike and I rode like a pratt and got them hurt I would think they have every right to sue me, especially if they had told me to slow down.

On the otherhand if a crash was not my fault then they have no right to sue me.

But If I caused someone to get hurt through my own stupidity then I wouldnt be surprised if they wanted to sue me.

Yes there are risks with getting on a bike esp on the back of one. But if someones stupidity gets you hurt its like anything else.

[Andy C]

thats what i was thinking but also if he wasnt insured, if the pillion knew then fair enought but if he didnt that quite unfair really, doesnt say condition of rider either as he could be just as bad..
____________________
99 RS125 --> 02 SV650s --> 03 Speed Four --> 92 RXS100 --> 93 CB400sf --> 01 CB600f Hornet

[Kickstart]

Hi

If the rider was insured then the pillion would be covered by the insurance policy. And under that circumstance the 3rd party technically would sue the rider for the claim, just the insurance company covers the risk.

No reason the pillion should not sue the rider. The rider has chosen not to insure himself to cover the risk of being sued.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[White Noise]

[Kickstart]

The accident is the rider responsibility

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[Phoenix]

Sue away, the fact he had no insurance AND took a pillion with no insurance only fuels the idea that he was an irresponsible twat.

[yambabe]

I agree he is right to sue.

However, surely if the rider had no pillion insurance he should have told the passenger before he got on, and I would expect the court to allow for considerable contributary negligence.

My insurance exludes pillions, by my own choice. It's a good excuse not to carry them!
____________________
Sod falling in love, I wanna fall in chocolate.

[Kickstart]

[lwflee]

I see no reason why the pillion should not be allowed to sue. Yes, when he agreed to ride pillion, he accepts a certain level of risk. But surely he should not be helpless if the Rider has ridden incredibly irresponsibly and dangerously?

In any case, just because the pillion sues doesn't mean that the pillion will 'win'.

In this case, i am guessing the pillion will try to sue for damages in Negligence.

As far as i can remember, in order to show negligence, the claimant needs to show:

1. That the rider owes the Pillion a duty of care.
2. That the Duty of care has been breached.
3. That 'but for' the Rider's breach of his duty of care, the pillion would not have been injured.

Also, there is the issue of contributory negligence whereby even if negligence on the Rider's part is shown, the damages awarded might be reduced because the Pillion is partly responsible for his injuries.

[ZZRman]

Will be thrown out of court, was he forced, was he told it was as safe as flying, was he charged for the ride, to many factors to consider, it is also well known (media etc) that biking is a dangerous activity. was the inccident entirely proven to be 100% the bikers fault, forget it it but it amy well have grounds IF the owner negleted his bike, once its smashed though it is not easy to prove, service history in owners hand book counts towards zero of such maintenance too because alot of people are more than capable of doing it themselves and at times better than agents/bike shops. It a bugger, I hope to never be in that situation one day, apart from that though I find insurance companies shouldnt be allowed to exclude pillion use, they dont with cars they shouldnt with bikes, talk about traffic congestion, anything to help and they nail you, sad, real sad state of affairs

[kawakid]

Its a hard one, but on a bike a pillion can cause the skid or crash.

My mates cousin wrote his bike off when his pillion, leaned to the right going round a left bend.

Now my mates cousin is say 10/11 stone, his pillions nick name begins with fat .....

Thus could the rider in this scenario seue the pillion?
____________________
I've a twin and a 4.

[map]

FYI this story from 1997 tells of how a wife had to sue her husband (as a 3rd party) in order to get damages that allowed them to live together!

This may put a perspective on the case reported as it may be similar.

HTH
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?

[DEN MONKEY]

Hmm a difficult one but it really depends on the situation.
As said before IF the rider took a silly risk or was riding like a complete twat than yeah something might be possible.

As for the pillion being better placed to sue because the rider wasnt covered for insurance purposes. I dont think so.

Im guessing it would be the same when lending your car to someone for instance. If you give them the keys and they have no licence you may well be held responsible in the case of an accident. I see it the same way here. If the pillion got on the bike then he must be held responsible for not checking all was ok before accepting the lift. Not that anyone does it, but its the way it goes.

I suspect there is more to this story that we dont know

[biggerjohn]

I actually see no problem with the pillion suing IF the biker was acting in exceptional dangerous way. Or the pillion is suing the Biker/bikers insurance to recover cost of medical care and for the physical injury.

Think of it this way if you got on a bus and the driver crashed into a wall due to driver error and you where badly injured wouldn’t you sue/seek compensation?

But if the driver/rider isn’t at fault there is no chance of the litigation succeeding anyway.

In this particular case I have no honest idea if there is a case to answer or not we just need more information.

[lwflee]

[Ste]

[quote="lwflee"]Also, there is the issue of contributory negligence whereby even if negligence on the Rider's part is shown, the damages awarded might be reduced because the Pillion is partly responsible for his injuries.[/quote
Unless the pillion wasn't wearing a helmet, they're blameless aren't they?

The rider does have a dusty of care, if they've crash and the pillion is injured then that has been breached and it's fairly straight foward that if the rider hadn't crashed then they wouldn't be injured. As long the pillion is wearing a helmet I don't see any way they could be to blame for their injuries.

Rider sueing their pillion is bollocks. The rider is the one in control of the bike, not the pillion, the pillion isn't to blame.

Pillion sueing the rider when they're not insured (if they have insurance then you're still sueing the rider just the insurance company are there to sign cheques), it's not the fault of the pillion so why shouldn't they be compensated for their losses? If they actually want to sue the rider knowing that the MIB will want their money back is up to them and no one else.

[lwflee]

[quote="Ste"]

[Bendy]

Personally, I'd like to see a passenger's rights to compensation waived unless they have paid for the trip.

It should be up to individuals to insure themselves (personal accident cover) for things they want to do in life. Not the responsibility of drivers/riders to pay the extra premiums to cover passengers you're doing a favour for.

I get the feeling lots of people wont agree with this.

[zaknafien]

[G]

[MarJay]

If you want to take passengers, take a car.

____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.