Tesco are not to blame
a lot of psychics on this thread (probably haven't yet managed to find the "can someone recommend a genuine medium" thread yet).
Nothing in the OPs post discounts Tescos having any liability. For all we know (well all I know, but clearly other posters either have an inside track, or little imagination) Tescos decided to provide bike racks right outside their front entrance. Which leads to a distinct suggestion that someone might have foreseen it could cause accidents.
Or not, obviously.
Or maybe the cyclist was following a path having asked a Tesco employee where he could park his bike, and the employee just pointed to the front of the store.
Neither of those situations relieves the cyclist of liability (arguably nothing could). But they might add to it.
I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It all seems unlikely, but really isn't that what accidents are ? Unlikely happenings ?
To the OP: if you suffer loss by anothers actions which can be deemed negligent, reckless or even criminal, you are quite at liberty to pursue them for those losses. However, be aware that even if you clear the hurdles of (a) proving liability, and (b) proving losses, you might never see a penny if the cyclist hasn't got any money. Either way, you need better advice than this forum (maybe post in "Legal Matters" ?).
Do you have legal cover on your home insurance ? Would be worth a call to them if you do ... also (and I mean this as nicely as possible) does your DH have any cover of his own in the event of being unable to work ?
It's long been suggested (and campaigned for) that cyclists should be required to have insurance and identification. However it never gets anywhere, as there is a presumption that cycling is something "good" and therefore should not be discouraged in any way. Personally I would have called that out as the crock of shit it is when people started being killed on the pavements by cyclists. But I guess it's only a few deaths and injuries, so we can't be too worried.