Man gets payout after ambulance that picked him up from bike crash injures him even more

A quick bit of research reveals;
HSE = The Health Service Executive (NHS in the UK)
MIB = The Motor Insurance Bureau-Ireland or MIBI (https://www.mibi.ie/uninsured-unidentifi.html)
I am guessing that in Ireland (as in England & Wales) you can sue more than one person who may be to blame for an incident and leave it for the court to decide who pays what and in what proportion.
It would appear that the HSE successfully argued that they were not to blame (ambulance driver not to blame). However I am not sure whether the court considered that the fact that the rider was not secured to the stretcher was an issue? In my experience you cannot safely secure a longboard to a stretcher.
My guess is that the MIBI were involved to represent the 'unidentified' driver who caused the ambulance driver to brake.
So the story should read that 'Cyclist sues unidentified driver for 27K'
Presumably the 'helmet' part was the health service saying that if they were to blame then his damages should be reduced for 'contributory negligence' in not wearing a helmet when he came off his bike initially. But as his injuries were caused in the ambulance by the unidentified driver this is not an issue.
I am on 'lates' now.... but on leave soon

I really don't have any strong opinions about people suing over such events. I think its hugely overblown as an issue. Probably in most cases it would look different if you knew every detail and even if not its minor (and random in who gains and loses) compared to all the systemic forms of waste and corruption that go on.

Is it wrong though that my first thought was of the Simpsons episode "Daredevil Bart", in which something rather similar happens to Homer (OK, in that case his trolley fell out of the back of the ambulance and straight down the canyon he'd just been fished out of). I don't recall if he sued anyone.

Wow. Let's try that again: "Uninsured driver causes injury to stricken MTB rider". Or "Failure to follow proceduress by ambulance crew puts MTB rider's health at risk". Cue consternation. Question for Road.cc - is it still trolling when you do it to yourself? Or was it all about page impressions.

If the injury occurred in the ambulance (and not before - and presumably the evidence indicates, on the balance or probabilities, that it did), then the reason he was in the ambulance is completely irrelevant. To argue otherwise is to add a moral condition to recovery (only "good" people get to recover), which isn't the point. This would be akin to justifying running a cyclist down by arguing said cyclist had (for example) run a red light several miles previous. Suggest all of those who have reverted pretty much instantly to "ambulance chasing parasite" should have a cup of tea and go back to the Mail.

There is always the potential that the MTBers insurers brought the action on his behalf. For example, MTBer may have had physio following the incident and, having paid out, MTBers insurers may have brought the action against the party responsible (who wasn't insured, hence MIB). Although "one insurer commences proceedings against another insurer in a entirely quotidian manner" doesn't garner as much outrage I guess.

Whiplash? Whilst lying on a stretcher? Hmmm.
As a genuine victim in a car crash a few years ago it took several hours before I stopped getting fresh pains & then a few weeks before any lasting damage could be ascertained. It was then a few months before I was medically signed off as recovered (after having various treatments).
I would say that the judgement has been made on very grey territory....

Any chance this story can be clarified?
Did the rider sue the ambulance service or someone else?
If they sued the ambulance service why was the motor insurance bureau (mib) involved? Surely an uninsured ambulance is a far bigger and better story?
Why was the HSE involved? Who is the HSE? In the UK we have the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) who are a Government body with responsibility to promote health and safety; they would normally prosecute, or help to prosecute employers in health and safety issues But this happened in southern Ireland Why (if at all) were they being sued? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Executive
This story makes no sense
I am still on nights

I've seen to much of this to be honest, he has no one to blame for his own earlier injury and then this happens and no doubt someone whispers in his ear - COMPENSATION and he suddenly gets whiplash etc.

Its got bot all to do with wearing a helmet or not. Its long overdue for the govt to say you get a maximum of £100 for whiplash, it would soon stop all the bogus claims.

For everyone going on about him not wearing a lid to mtb I would ask you one question. If he wasn't a cyclist and just fell on the road and hit his head, then you think him suing is ok? Personally, i don't think it matters in the slightest why he was in the ambo, the fact is that he was, and was injured whilst inside it. He sued (and my personal feelings on that aside) and it was found to be due to the actions of the other driver that he was injured, and was therefore awarded some compensation. I don't see what the comments about what he was doing beforehand have to do with the square root of f-all in this case.

As someone else has already mentioned the cyclist was suing the HSE and the Motor Insurance Bureau. The HSE were exonerated as the ambulance driver was found not to be at fault. The driver of the car who caused the ambulance to stop suddenly was found to be at fault.

Because he was uninsured the Motor Insurance Bureau took responsibility for the insurance - (in Ireland all insurance companies contribute to this so that in the event of an accident with an uninsured driver there is still recourse for the victim of the accident).

For those of you carping about state paying, money grabbing git etc please re-read the full story instead of skimming it.

Sorry but I think it's just morally wrong to sue a health service when they are carrying out a service for your OWN health, ok other measures should have been in place emergency stops happen all the time & in fairness the HSE should have taken better precaution but to sue them

You MTB'd without a helmet - really! seriously! & what.. you actually hit your head on a rock... & u actually knocked yourself out!! & you sue a health service!!

I don't care whether u do / don't wear a helmet bridgade on the road but off road the whole object is to go downhill really really fast..

i've mtb'd for over 20 years, i've broke several bones - you fall off hard, your hands hit the ground (wrists) then your arms shoulders (collar bones) then head in the order almost everytime unless you do full face plant when guess what your head hits the ground first, at least 75% of mtb falls are over the bars..

the HSE come to help you & make sure your brain is still intact.. there's a bit of an incident on the way to hospital, your still good, you get up walk away they check you out you've no internal head bleeding etc & you sue them, i'm sorry that's just wrong!

Take some of your money & buy a helmet..

Nowasps - do you wear a helmet when reading this webpage?

Next stop: compulsory lids for ambulance patients...

I'm suing this webpage. My arm slipped off the desk while reading it, and I cracked my chin on the table.

Come on people;
A judge does not make it up as they go along; they hear each sides argument and decide, in a civil case, which, on the balance of probabilities is most persuasive.
For the Motor Insurance Bureau to get involved the driver would not be insured. An ambulance driver would be, so I would assume that the driver who caused the ambulance driver to brake was considered to blame; so it would be them who was not insured. It says above the ambulance driver was not to blame. In law you can argue either that the chain of events are linked, and so the initial injury and any contributory negligence considered (helmet (=controversial!!!)). Or you can argue that a 'new act intervenes', so that the actions of the driver of the other vehicle has broken the chain of causation. In this case it would be irrelevant how the cyclist came to be 'in the back'. As far as the potential spinal injury is concerned in the UK the NEXUS rules are applied when risk assessing a patient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_cervical_spine . Meaning that the riders risk of having neck/spinal injury should have been assessed before being put in the back of the ambulance. Who knows whether he was injured before he got in the ambulance or not? Evidence is presented and considered, on the balance of probabilities. It is not easy or even possible to secure a 'longboard' to a stretcher to prevent injury in a crash (as far as I know).
I hope this makes sense (I am on nights ).

Money grabbing git. Compo chasing parasite. Idiot.

I know that opinions are much like other things, in that everybody has one, but did I just get redirected to the Daily Mail's website?

Pure speculation in all the above posts including mine, unless you were there, involved in the case itself or had access to all the medical reports in the case if course.

Still, let's not stop that from slagging the dude off, despite a court finding in his favour.

This is hardly a cycling story...

Compo chasing parasite!

His injury - if there was one - was more likely caused by his helmet less MTB crash which sadly probably can't be proven?

This kind of thing is just plain wrong. The mtb chap is just a money grabbing git who should be ashamed of himself. He sounds like the sort who see every accident as an opportunity...whilst everyone else picks up the soaring costs of insurance.

The ambo crew assumed a duty of care for the guy from the point of conveying him in the vehicle, and presumably the paramedic(s) would have provided statements of their immediate diagnosis upon their initial assessment prior to the ambo moving. It could also be argued that the decision to not use a neck collar also suggests no complaints or signs of neck injury prior to the emergency stop.

I'd hazard a guess that the ambo had some form of datalogging system that could be downloaded in the event of an accident or event such as this. Police cars do, always downloaded after an injury polcol.

If I suffered injury and/or loss when in the care of a corporate body or authority then I would hope to get some form of reparation too.

Typical for these days - blame everyone else - if he'd been wearing a helmet (surely a must for MTB action) he may never have been in the ambulance in the first place.

Driverless ambulances now too...?

whipcash strikes again

Sorry i forgot the Judge is better qualified to say his injuries were from the stop and not the cause of his earlier tumble

Why did this not come of the car drivers insurance?