Cycling lawyers get lesson in liability law from judge

Cycling lawyers get lesson in liability law from judge

After two bike-running lawyers end up in the Amstel River because they are startled by a dog, they try to convince the dog's owner liable to sue for damages. Since the man does not pay voluntarily, the lawyers decide to hire their own lawyer and sue the man. subpoena. The judge points out the lawyers' rambling evidence and rules against them. After a lesson in procedural and evidentiary law, the judge adds that he finds it incomprehensible that the lawyers pursued their claim at all.  

Dog owner liable for damage caused by cyclists' accident?

In late January 2022, two lawyers, office mates of each other, are cycling along the Amsteldijk near Amsterdam. They are cycling close together at about 26 kilometers per hour. At some point, in the opposite direction, they encounter a man walking on the opposite side of the road with his fiancée and leashed dog. The front cyclist is startled by the dog, brakes hard and swerves. He ends up in the grass next to the Amstel River. His companion, however, cannot brake in time, collides with his colleague and subsequently ends up in the river with his bike and all. That same day, they send a message via Whatsapp reporting their damage. For example, the frame of one of the bikes is said to be damaged In addition, one of the wheels, the front fork the handlebars and the brakes are bent. Furthermore, glasses were lost in the Amstel River and the phone of the cyclist who hit the water “swimming not survived”, said the lawyer. The damages would be a sloppy €5,000.

No causal relationship

The law requires that for liability to be assumed, there must be causation between the event causing the injury and the injury. The cantonal court rules that this causal link does not exist in this case. This is because the damage suffered by the cyclist in front was not caused by the (alleged) behavior of the dog. After all, he only had to swerve and ended up - then without damage - in the grass next to the road. The damage was then caused by the rear cyclist, who collided with him. This is not the fault of the dog owner, but of the rear cyclist.

Own fault

The latter cyclist is also missing out. In fact, it was his own fault. He cycled at high speed on a narrow road and did so very close to his predecessor. Due to the unsafe combination of speed and distance, he could not stop his bicycle in time, collided and ended up in the Amstel. These circumstances are attributable to him, and not to the dog owner. Therefore, the judge ruled that the damage was mainly caused by his own fault and he is not entitled to compensation.

New value instead of current value

The subdistrict court also disapproved of the way the damages were calculated. For example, the new value of the damaged bicycle frame was wrongly assumed, whereas it should have been the current market value. The judge noted that damages law does not mean that the plaintiff should be ‘rewarded’ with a brand new frame.

“The law of damages does not imply that [plaintiff 2] should be rewarded with a brand new frame because of the loss of his old frame.”

No evidence

The district judge went a step further by indicating that even if there were causation and attributable damage, the claim would be stranded. This is because a witness has stated that the dog was on a tight leash and did not make any unexpected movements. The same declare the man held liable and his fiancée. It is true that the cyclist who rode in front states that the dog was “sudden and unexpected toward the front wheel” shot, but it remains with this one statement to the detriment of the dog owner. Even the cyclist riding behind stated at the hearing that he did not observe the dog because he was cycling behind his colleague. There are no more or other witness statements. The judge indicates that therefore it is hard to see why, at the defendant's expense and at the expense of justice, they still pursued their claims. As attorneys, they should have known better and understood that there was insufficient evidence to support their contentions, according to the ruling.

“Although the claims of [plaintiff 2] and [plaintiff 1] are already stranded for another reason, and those claims were further based in part on an erroneous premise and were also inadequately substantiated, for this reason, too, it is not easy to follow why [plaintiff 2] and [plaintiff 1] , themselves lawyers, proceeded to bring and pursue their legal claims at the expense of [defendant] (and, for that matter, the judiciary).”

Lawyer liability law

While it may make perfect sense to feel that another person is liable for damages suffered, in practice there are often several hurdles to overcome. First, it must be shown that a certain behavior (in this case: the unexpected movement of the dog) took place. Next, it must be shown that the damage is the result thereof and that there are no circumstances that can be attributed to the party suffering the damage. If you fail to do so, your case is likely to be thrown out. A lawyer liability law can advise on that.