Cycling accidents involving motor vehicles can be life-altering, and determining who is at fault can be more complicated than it seems. If you are involved in such an accident, understanding the legal intricacies can make all the difference in securing the compensation you deserve.
In negligence lawsuits, typically the person bringing the claim must prove that the other party was careless. This is known as the burden of proof. For example, if I am injured in a car accident because another driver made an improper turn and hit my vehicle, I must provide evidence that their turn was indeed improper. This is not always straightforward. Consider an accident in a rural area with no witnesses, where both drivers provide conflicting accounts, and where the vehicle damage fails to clearly establish fault. In such cases, an injured party may struggle to prove their claim.
However, when a motor vehicle collides with a cyclist, the situation is different. Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, the burden of proof shifts to the driver of the motor vehicle.[1] In other words, the law presumes that the driver is at fault unless they can prove otherwise.
Even if the defendant cannot prove that the cyclist was fully responsible for the accident, they may still argue that the cyclist bears some degree of fault. This is known as contributory negligence. If the defendant demonstrates that the cyclist’s actions contributed to their injuries, the cyclist’s compensation can be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to them.
A common issue that arises in these cases is whether a cyclist's failure to wear a helmet constitutes negligence. However, determining whether this failure should reduce compensation is nuanced. Just as the driver bears the burden of proving their negligence did not cause the accident, drivers must also show that a cyclist’s failure to wear a helmet directly contributed to the cyclist’s injuries.
For example, if a cyclist is hit by a car and suffers a knee injury, failing to wear a helmet would not be enough to establish contributory negligence. This is because the failure to wear a helmet likely would have not prevented the cyclist from sustaining an injury to their knee. Ontario courts require drivers to establish a clear causal link between the cyclist’s failure to wear a helmet and the injuries they sustained to determine that a cyclist was contributorily negligent.[2] This is challenging for the defence.
The defendant must provide expert evidence showing that wearing a helmet could have prevented or reduced the cyclist’s specific injuries. In one case, a young boy was hit by a car while biking across an on-ramp. The defendant's lawyer presented evidence that helmets can reduce the risk of head injuries by 60-75%. However, the court found this general statistic unconvincing and ruled that it was unclear how much a helmet would have reduced the boy's head injuries. This case, along with other recent Ontario decisions, demonstrates that the defendant must provide expert or biomechanical evidence linking the cyclist's injuries to the lack of a helmet.
For cyclists involved in motor vehicle collisions, it's essential to understand how negligence is determined and how contributory negligence can impact compensation. Whether you are a cyclist or a driver, seeking legal counsel is important to navigate these complicated issues and ensure that you have the proper evidence to support your case.
Campisi has extensive experience helping individuals that have been involved in bicycle accidents get the compensation they deserve. Just this year, we helped a bike accident victim with soft tissue injuries settle a claim for $2.95 million. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
If you, or someone you know has been injured in a bike accident, contact Campisi today.