Patrick Brown, a lawyer at Mcleish Orlando, has provided his advice for people who have been hit by cars and would like to make claims for damages to their bicycles. I often get emails looking for advice on matters such as this but I'm just an opinionated blogger. Someone had reached out to me asking about what to do after he was hit by a car, but I'm not a lawyer, so I passed on the email to Patrick who kindly provided his advice pro bono to the unfortunate person.
In short, Patrick advises it is possible to get compensated for a damaged bike in a collision or crash if it meets some conditions and if the person follows the steps closely. Note: make sure you do not sign anything that releases the driver from any claim you may have for bodily injury.
Please don't take this article as official advice by me or by Patrick Brown. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer and get first hand advice since every case is unique.
Hopefully none of us will need to pay heed to this advice.
Comments
Kevin (not verified)
Too bad that Mr. Brown gave
Sat, 11/15/2014 - 03:45Too bad that Mr. Brown gave very wrong advice. Specifically:
"To be successful, you will need to prove that the driver of the car was at fault."
Not true in Ontario. To quote from the Highway Traffic Act, Part 11:
"When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle."
Source:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e...
Kevin Love
Parick Brown (not verified)
The section you are referring
Sat, 11/15/2014 - 12:10The section you are referring to Kevin applies what is called a "reverse onus" on the driver of the car when it strikes a pedestrian or cyclist. A reverse onus simply means that instead of having the onus of proof on the cyclist to establish fault, the onus lies on the driver to prove they were not at fault. If the driver of the car calls evidence to dislodge the onus (if there is a dispute, they always do), then the cyclist would have to call evidence to establish fault. Unless the case is uncontested, the cyclist will have to call evidence and prove their case. The cyclist going to court should be prepared to do so. If they do not, they will likely lose if the other side shows up. The reverse onus makes it a tad easier on the cyclist, but it does not remove the need to call evidence and prove fault against the driver.
Your point Kevin is an important one to make, but my advice was not wrong. I suspect if I worded it another way, it would mislead cyclists into thinking they do not have to prove who was at fault.