Written By: Lindsay Charles, Partner, and Alexis Andrew, Student-At-Law
6 Minute Read
Introduction – Why Cycling Injury Claims Can Be Complex
Cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users on Ontario’s roads. Unlike motor vehicle drivers, cyclists have minimal protection when sharing the road with cars, trucks and other vehicles. As a result, even a relatively low-speed collision can lead to serious life-altering injuries. Wearing a helmet or other protective equipment is beneficial, however these safety measures alone do not eliminate the risk of injury.
In Ontario, cyclists aged 18 or older are not legally required to wear a helmet, although it is strongly recommended. Children and youth must wear an approved helmet when riding a bicycle, and it is the responsibility of a parent or guardian for those aged 16 and under (Ontario Bicycle Safety). The absence of using a helmet can become a factor is assessing damages for injuries caused in a cycling collision, however it does not prevent an injured cyclist from pursing compensation.
Cycling injury claims are typically not simple. In some cases, it may seem as straightforward as “I was hit, I was injured, I should be compensated”, however, the legal reality is often more complex. In Ontario, liability may be shared between multiple parties such as the driver, the cyclist, or even the municipality that is responsible for road maintenance. Courts will consider a range of factors that might sway the finding of fault including road conditions, right-of-way, traffic speed, and whether the road users, both the cyclist and the driver, were abiding the laws of the Highway Traffic Act at the time of the crash.
Understanding the Legal Framework in Ontario and Contributory Negligence
Under the HTA, a bicycle is considered a vehicle (section 1(1)). This means that cyclists must obey all traffic laws and that they generally have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers (Ontario Bicycle Safety).
Section 193(1) of the HTA creates what is known as a “reverse onus” in certain motor vehicle collisions, including those involving cyclists. This means that the law assumes that the driver of the motor vehicle is at fault unless they can prove that they were not negligent. This is important for cycling crash victims because it shifts the burden of proving fault onto the driver, however, it does not necessarily mean that the driver will be found 100% at fault for the crash. This is because courts will also consider whether the cyclist contributed to their own injuries. This is known as contributory negligence. Common examples of this in cycling claims include disobeying traffic lights, cycling without reflectors at night in an unlit area or riding without a helmet.
If a driver is able to prove that a cyclist contributed to their own injuries, then the court can reduce the amount of compensation awarded for those injuries. When a cyclist is not wearing a helmet and they get into a crash, the driver’s insurance company may claim that the cyclist’s failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of their injuries. Cases on this issue throughout Ontario consistently base the success of this argument on the expert evidence that is presented to show that a helmet would have minimized the sustained injuries.
What If a Helmet Wouldn’t Make a Difference?
An issue that arises in cases where a cyclist was injured while not wearing a helmet is whether wearing a helmet would have made a difference. To find that the cyclist was contributorily negligent by not wearing a helmet, the defendant must prove that not wearing a helmet made a material difference and the cyclist was more severely injured because of it.
Courts will not reduce damages for contributory negligence without clear scientific evidence from an expert in the field that establishes a causal link between the absence of a helmet and the injuries that were suffered. Determining this often requires the help of medical experts and engineers.
The Importance of Expert Evidence
In complex cycling injury claims, expert evidence plays an important role in determining liability. These cases can often engage with technical issues about medical prognosis or causation and accident reconstruction that are beyond the knowledge of most people. For example, reconstruction experts may be able to find out the speed that a vehicle was travelling at or exactly how a collision occurred. This is especially helpful in situations where one party has lost their memory of the incident. Similarly, medical experts may assess head injuries and determine if they were inevitable regardless of helmet use.
You may have read our previous blog, “Contributory Negligence and Helmet Use: Recent Updates to the Law in Ontario” that explored how four Ontario court cases handled the issue of contributory negligence and the influence of expert evidence. One of those decisions was St. Marthe v O’Connor, a case where the plaintiff was cycling to work without a helmet when he was struck by a vehicle that was exiting a gas station (2019 ONSC 1585). The Court found that he plaintiff was not contributorily negligent and there as no reduction in his compensation award. The defendant had failed to demonstrate that wearing the helmet would have prevented or lessened the injuries.
Supporting a cycling claim with expert evidence can significantly influence the outcome of the claim.
Common Cycling Accident Scenarios
There are numerous scenarios in which a cyclist could be hit by a motor vehicle, however, some scenarios are more common than others. One common incident is known as “dooring,” where a vehicle that is parked opens the door into the path of an oncoming cyclist. These incidents are most common in highly populated areas with lots of street parking.
Intersection collisions are one of the most common and dangerous scenarios for a cycling crash. A driver could fail to yield, make an unsafe turn, disobey a bike lane, be distracted while driving or numerous other scenarios.
Construction zones and road defects are also factors that influence a higher risk of injury to cyclists, especially when they are forced to merge into busy traffic lanes to avoid hazards. When drivers fail to share the road, collisions can occur.
Conclusion
Overall, cycling injury claims are rarely as simple as they appear. Issues such as helmet use can quickly become relevant when assessing contributory negligence and can reduce compensation. Since these legal claims often involve technical questions of causation and liability, legal advice can help.
If you were injured while cycling, our lawyers can help you understand your rights and pursue the compensation you may be entitled to for your injuries.
