Positive result.

Went through similar situation in 09, wife was the plaintiff. It doesn't say it in the article but who owned the van, was it personal or a business? Either way must have had comprehensive insurance? We were limited by the defendants insurance.

Will it make people think twice around cyclists - probably not in first instance, but there's a message in there somewhere.

From the first hyperlink in the article, it was a commercial van so I assume it would have been covered by their insurance.
http://www.phillymag.com/...judgment-doored-run/

This kind of brazen ignorance is what really frustrates me. A year after the incident, and after lord knows how much coaching from various lawyers and the van driver STILL has no idea what the law says.

 
What's the saying, every cloud....

Agreed, but the "lining in the cloud" is a high price to pay for never having full use of her legs again as stated in the article.

Best,
GS

Agree totally mate - I'm not trying to minimize anything. But I'm guessing history has plenty of cyclists in similar circumstances where the outcome ($$) was far less.

It's a step in the right direction, but in terms of this one particular case, still a crap outcome.

If the van driver (and the van company) are only 36% at fault, and the driver who opened the door is 43% at fault, does this mean the driver who opened the door is on the hook for more than half of the $2.4 million?

After lawyer fees, I'm wondering if this cyclist will see any money at all. That said...at least the verdict is a step in the right direction, but I'd hardly consider the verdict amount as "whopping" when you consider someone in their early 20's has lost full use of their legs and has a pile of medical bills.

Reckon the driver is 100% an ignorant twat........