A taxi driver was held fully liable for a collision with a bicycle courier on Custom House Quay in Dublin, after the High Court found that he pulled out from a stationary position into the cyclist’s path without keeping a proper lookout.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2016, Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton found no negligence by the cyclist. The proceedings were a claim for personal injury damages, defended on a full-proof basis with contributory negligence pleaded. The court determined liability and assessed damages, but did not set out final orders: the judge said he would discuss their form with counsel.
The collision occurred on 4 March 2015, while traffic was stopped at a red light. The cyclist said the taxi moved sharply right into his path as he rode beside the queue. The driver said he had been stationary and the cyclist struck the taxi’s door mirror. A courier travelling in the same direction saw the taxi turn right and corroborated the cyclist on that point, but the judge considered his account insufficiently reliable to decide the issue.
The judge accepted that the taxi had been two to three cars back from the lights, rejecting the driver’s and another witness’s placement of it farther back. Engineering evidence about the mirror damage and the vehicle’s resting position supported a less acute angle than the cyclist described. The court found the taxi had pulled out from its stationary position into the cyclist’s path, though it did not decide why. It also found the cyclist was riding close to the hatched road markings, not in them, and was entitled to use the outside lane for his intended delivery.
The cyclist sustained soft-tissue injuries to his right thumb and shoulder and a haematoma over his left shin. The court found he had recovered from the thumb injury and substantially recovered from the shoulder injury, with no functional impairment. It assessed general damages at €30,000.
The court rejected claims for €375 a week in lost earnings from the accident until the end of June 2015 and for bicycle damage, finding the evidence did not prove either claim. It said other special-damage items properly vouched and agreed would be allowed.