Safe Speed Forums

Journalist left unable to walk or talk after accident gets £1m
Thursday, 4 November 2010
A journalist knocked down while allegedly texting on his mobile phone near Belfast has received more than £1m in compensation.
Milan Rybansky (34) suffered serious brain injuries that have left him unable to walk or talk since the accident nearly six years ago.
His lawyers have now secured a payout of £1.125m for him in a landmark settlement reached at the Northern Ireland High Court yesterday.
Although believed to be the largest-ever compensation case involving a Slovakian national, the amount was reduced to reflect his share of responsibility for what happened.
Mr Rybansky was crossing the Mallusk Road in Newtownabbey when he was struck by a car in December 2004.

It was not disputed that he was using his mobile phone at the time, with a witness suggesting he was using it to text.
The trained journalist had moved to Belfast six weeks before the collision.
Fluent in three languages, he also worked as a history teacher in his native country.
But due to the seriousness of his injuries he is now confined to a wheelchair and has only limited use of his hands.
Mr Rybansky was repatriated to his home near Bratislava, where he requires 24-hour care.
His parents, who were forced to sell their home and give up work to look after him, brought an action on his behalf against the insurers of the motorist involved in the collision.
At first the case was disputed on the basis that Mr Rybansky was at fault for the accident because he was using his phone.
However, an agreement was eventually reached to share liability because it was accepted the driver should also have seen him.

Mr Rybansky's lawyer, Joe Moore of O'Reilly Stewart Solicitors in Belfast, said the settlement reflected the seriousness of his client's injuries and the fact he will never work again.
The scale of the compensation has now been approved by the High Court after checks were carried out on how the money would be managed in Slovakia.
Mr Moore, who travelled to the central European country as part of his handling of the case, described it as “a life changing” outcome for Mr Rybansky.
He said: “But for the compensation claim the outlook for Milan's family was very bleak.
“It now allows them to purchase a proper car to transport him and a proper house, given that he needs 24-hour care to give him some quality of life.
“The important thing for the family, and it has taken a lot of effort to get to this point, is that they are now able to pay for the things that are important to Milan now and in the future, particularly the medical care.”

World's gone compo crazy . Motorist found texting is automatically guilty . yet ped ,with mind fully on text mode , is relieved of responsibilities

Of course. Don't you realise that, if only the big bad motorist stuck to the letter of the law and never exceeded the speed limit, pedestrians would always be safe as houses, regardless of what they did.

Kindly put brain in gear before engaging mouth

Perhaps if the motorist took the trouble to look at the road in front of him he wouldn't run into pedestrians, texting or not.

It is quite clear to anyone with intelligence higher than a slug why a motorist has an unconditional duty of care towards pedestrians, however stupidly they are behaving. Having the ability to easily kill someone does not impart the right to do so.

What responsibility. Responsibility to get out of the way of a homicidal motorist?

Putting it bluntly, a moving vehicle requires a finite amount of time and space to stop.
I'm not suggesting that vehicle drivers don't have a duty of responsibility towards other road users, but merely pointing out that it's only pedestrians who can guarantee their safety 100%. Nobody else can - because of the immutable laws of physics. That's irrefutable fact.

Anyone with the intelligence of a virus ( ) would be aware that no pedestrian can guarantee their safety 100% when there are drivers like this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/18/rochdale-nightclub-revellers-mown-down-by-stolen-car-115875-22642133/

If he'd have suffered these injuries from falling down a set of stairs whilst walking along texting then I wonder who his parents would have sued on his behalf.

However, an agreement was eventually reached to share liability because it was accepted the driver should also have seen him.

Both have responsibilities to uphold and both parties clearly failed in this objective.
Very little info is stated about the road or why the driver failed to observe the ped's potential action.

There's a bit of a contradiction there. How can we know that either or both parties clearly failed to uphold their responsibilities, when we have no knowledge of the circumstances which led to the collision?

It's not illegal for a pedestrian to use a mobile phone on a pavement or a road, so I don't think there is any way the law can legislate against this.

I have yet to grasp the difference, whether walking or driving, between talking into a mobile phone and talking to a companion.

Neither activity requires you to close your eyes to your surroundings.

Indeed, because many people cannot talk to a companion without looking at them, that might be considered to be the more dangerous activity.