Traffic accidents are not really in our wheelhouse. So whenever I’m commissioned by friends and acquaintances for such cases, it never ceases to amaze me the utter nonsense that gets put on paper. One example is the case of a friend who, while jogging, witnessed a cyclist fall off of his bike right next to him – and who is now all of a sudden being sued for damages and pain and suffering as the alleged perpetrator of the accident.
It’s quite remarkable in and of itself that a cyclist (as the “stronger” of the road users here) is suing a pedestrian. Or that, in this case, it is undisputed that neither party had any physical contact with the other. What I found particularly absurd was that the opponent claimed that our description of the path on which our client was jogging was hard to believe, unrealistic and – wait for it – PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! A jogger could not possibly run through such a tight curve. Based on the laws of physics, he would have necessarily had to be facing “oncoming traffic” (i.e. in the bike lane).
Now, seriously, who comes up with these things? Are there laws of nature specifying a jogger’s turning radius? And if someone wants to rotate 180 degrees, is the best course to make a “three point turn” like they teach you when you’re learning to drive? It’s a pretty funny thing to picture!
So naturally I offered for an expert opinion to be sought on the matter as counter-evidence. Or to demonstrate in court that I can even make a 360-degree turn on the spot – without any need for a turning radius.
Fortunately, we have now won the case and have done so without the need for me to perform any pirouettes in the courtroom. The judge knew from his own experience that people have the ability to turn or run through tight corners without the need for a turning radius.
I’m looking forward to the written grounds for the verdict!
