Injured Cyclists could have their compensation reduced if they choose not to wear a helmet

A summary of the ruling by the High Court in the recent case of REYNOLDS v STRUTT & PARKER LLP (2011), where a cyclist’s compensation for his Brain Injury was reduced for not wearing a helmet.

In 2008, Simon Reynolds took part in a "team building day" organised by his employers, Real estate agents Strutt and Parker. The events for the day were kept secret, but employees were given a choice of categories, and Reynolds chose to be "active and energetic". When he arrived at the event's location he was told that there was going to be a cycle race, so he took one of the bikes provided, ignoring a rack of cycle helmets. Some 25m from the finish line he collided with another competitor and fell off, sustaining brain damage.

Reynolds sued his employers for compensation, and the High Court's full judgment in Reynolds v Strutt and Parker has recently been delivered  became available for the first time last week. The Judge, Oliver-Jones QC, found Strutt and Parker liable for the accident, largely because they had failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment for the cycle race. However their liability was reduced by two-thirds because of Reynolds' "contributory negligence" in two respects: firstly he had cycled in a dangerous manner which brought about the collision, and secondly he wasn't wearing a helmet.

A Summary of the Case is listed below:

“The Court was required to determine liability in a claim brought by the claimant employee Reynolds (R) against the defendant employer Strutt (S) in relation to personal injuries sustained by R. R had attended an activities afternoon at a country park arranged by S for all of its employees who worked at one of its offices. The event was organised by two of S's partners. It was decided that the end of the event would include a cycling race. Before the event took place, the organisers and S's health and safety officer had met and discussed the safety of using bicycles and they dismissed the idea of using mountain bicycles. At the race, of the 12 cyclists involved, only one (X) wore a helmet. Near to the finish line, R's and X's bicycles collided. R sustained a serious brain injury. R brought a claim against S alleging negligence, breach of the common law duty owed by an employer to an employee, and breach of statutory duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Expert evidence indicated that if R had been wearing a helmet it was very unlikely that he would have sustained the injury that he had. S argued that the injuries were not sustained in the course of R's employment. S further contended that as R was an experienced cyclist, he could have chosen to use a helmet and the fact that he did not suggested that he would not have complied if he had been told to wear one.

HELD: (1) It was clear that R was not at the event in the course of his employment when he was taking advantage of S's hospitality. It would offend a sense of justness and reasonableness to conclude that the Act and Regulations applied in such circumstances. "At work" and "in the course of employment" in the context of the Regulations should therefore be interpreted in that way. Moreover, the playing of competitive sports referred to in the Regulations did not include an event such as S's but was intended to apply to employed professional sports people (see paras 38-39 of judgment). (2) Nevertheless, the partners who organised the event had breached their duty of care. Neither partner had the necessary skill and knowledge to make the necessary assessment of risk and so they overlooked the most obvious risk, namely collision. Neither of them properly assessed the need to recommend, let alone require, that the participants wore helmets and neither was properly trained to make such an assessment. There was a clear failure to carry out a sufficient and suitable risk assessment, and no such assessment was carried out beyond excluding the use of mountain bikes. The risk of collision and the potential consequences were very obvious. Where people were organising an activity and were unfamiliar with how to organise it, it was common sense to seek the advice of those who were familiar with it. In the instant case, those were the people who were in charge of the park. Had such advice been sought, the participants in the cycle race would have been required to wear helmets. If R had been told to wear a helmet and had not complied, he should then have been excluded from the race. S was negligent in its communication of information concerning the wearing of helmets (paras 28-29, 42-44). (3) The collision occurred as a result of a deliberate attempt by R to force X out of the race or, at the very least, as a result of a reckless disregard for his own and X's safety. R was aware that helmets were available, if only because he had seen X wearing one. If those who failed to use helmets on quiet country roads were contributorily negligent, then R should also be, Smith v Finch (2009) EWHC 53 (QB) and Froom v Butcher (1976) QB 286 CA (Civ Div) considered. Therefore S was liable and R was two-thirds contributorily negligent”.

Although it's not currently an offence to ride without a helmet the Reynolds case means that the decision not to wear a helmet can have legal consequences for cyclists who sustain head injuries and claim for compensation.

According to a recent article by Jorren Knibbe a Barrister who also writes about cycling law ‘Although Reynolds was injured in a race, the court's decision could apply in the same way to normal road cycling.

The Reynolds case is the first occasion where the courts have reduced a cyclist's compensation in this way, but it seems to be part of a wider trend in the law's attitude towards helmets.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund have suggested that deductions for not wearing a helmet are now common in out-of-court settlements of head injury claims brought by cyclists. And when cases have reached the courts in recent years, the courts have held that cycling without a helmet is negligent (at least for the purposes of contributory negligence), largely because it involves ignoring the Highway Code's recommendation that "you should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened". This conclusion was first expressed by Mr Justice Griffith Williams in the 2009 case of Smith v Finch, and has now been adopted by the High Court in its last three decisions on the issue.

The previous court decisions involved collisions with motor vehicles, at speeds higher than those at which helmets are tested, so the courts didn't have sufficient evidence that a helmet would have made a difference to the head injury. As a result they couldn't make reductions in the compensation awarded to the injured cyclists. Reynolds' case was different because there was no motor vehicle involved, and the judge found that the impact speed was likely to have been within the range at which helmets are tested.

If the Reynolds case goes to appeal it is possible that the outcome may be different. For the moment, though, the case might encourage motor insurance companies who, according to the Cyclists' Defence Fund, may routinely seek deductions when settling head injury claims with cyclists who didn't wear helmets.

The case may also make it more likely that courts will award less compensation in the future to other cyclists who suffer head injuries at low impact speeds while riding without a helmet. But, on its own, the case isn't a reason to change personal decisions about helmets. The court cases on helmets involve life-altering accidents, and show above all that the most important thing is to ride safely, however you choose to do it’.

Sustaining any type of brain injury is a life changing experience not only for the injured person but also for their family and friends.  You may feel your world has been turned upside down, however at Hilary Meredith Solicitors we assist our clients and their families whose lives have been changed forever as a result of the negligence of a third party such as from an Accident at Work, Public Liability Accident or a Road Traffic Accident. 

Thankfully in some cases, through intensive Rehabilitation it may be possible to improve an individual’s quality of life and the lives of those around them affected by a brain injury.  Following any Catastrophic accident where our clients have sustained any Brain Injury we will liaise and arrange an immediate needs assessment and instruct an expert to assist with your Rehabilitation and help rebuild your life. 

It may be necessary for us to instruct and rely on the expertise of a Care expert whose role it is to provide an independent assessment of any future Care and Rehabilitation needs for our clients.  A Care/Case manager is used to assess, plan, implement, co-ordinate and evaluate the options and services required to meet an individual’s health and social needs.  They will establish our client’s/their family’s aims and formulate these into a realistic rehabilitation and maintenance programme.

Without Rehabilitation a brain injured patient may experience lack of progress, poorer quality of life, unnecessary complications, reduced life expectancy, increased care needs, and/or reduced employment prospects. 

Hilary Meredith Solicitors specialise in representing those individuals who have sustained Brain injuries at a number of destinations across the globe.