Sue or go bankrupt?
 

Weird legal news from London:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nsation-london


--
- Frank Krygowski

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+ percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur those fees.

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:38:42 AM UTC-4, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+ percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur those fees.

I think in this case it's mostly the fault of a cellphone using pedestrian who suddenly entered the roadway. She could have caused a death had the bicyclist swerved into traffic or if he had been hit by a motor car or lorry after he went down. I also wonder if the judgment would have been different had it been a male judge rather than a female one.

I firmly believe that this case is a case of the Law being an Ass.

Cheers

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if anybody gets hurt. That's basic golden-rule level stuff. Exporting responsibility to the victims is just wrong.

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Chalo wrote:
Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers..

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if anybody gets hurt. That's basic golden-rule level stuff. Exporting responsibility to the victims is just wrong.

However in this case it appears as though it was the pedestrian who was responsible who brought the hazard into the situation. Had she NOT been on her cellphone she most likely would not have stepped into the bicyclist's way. Had that been a motor car or lorry that struck would the driver of the vehicle been judged to be at fault? Or is the Law stating that the operator of any vehicle on the road must be aware of and able to avoid any pedestrian who suddenly steps out into the roadway? Too me that seems pretty ridiculous as there are many times (and this looks like one of them) when pedestrians do totally unexpected things. Just because it's a pedestrian is imho no reason to shift the responsibility/blame to the operator of a vehicle.

Cheers

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:52:00 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Chalo wrote:
Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if anybody gets hurt. That's basic golden-rule level stuff. Exporting responsibility to the victims is just wrong.

However in this case it appears as though it was the pedestrian who was responsible who brought the hazard into the situation. Had she NOT been on her cellphone she most likely would not have stepped into the bicyclist's way. Had that been a motor car or lorry that struck would the driver of the vehicle been judged to be at fault? Or is the Law stating that the operator of any vehicle on the road must be aware of and able to avoid any pedestrian who suddenly steps out into the roadway? Too me that seems pretty ridiculous as there are many times (and this looks like one of them) when pedestrians do totally unexpected things. Just because it's a pedestrian is imho no reason to shift the responsibility/blame to the operator of a vehicle.

Cheers

"Busy junction near London Bridge" = scrum. I'm amazed Ms. Pedestrian didn't get flattened by a a double-decker bus or ten motor-scooters.

The outcome in this case was caused by the collision of two rules and a legal mistake. The two rules are "looser pays" and pure comparative fault, and the mistake was not counter-claiming for his own damages. "Looser pays" is a fine rule in some circumstances since it promotes settlement, particularly settlement of small claims. Comparative fault is a fine rule, too, but pure comparative allows a person to recover who is 99% at fault. The "winner" has her award reduced by 99%, but she still gets her fees -- which were way larger than the damage award in this case. In Oregon, if you are more than 51% at fault in causing your own injury, then your claim is barred entirely.

Since this guy was knocked out and injured, he could have counter-claimed for his own damages and won, too. I don't know what they do in the UK when there are two winners, but the fee claims would probably net-out, or the court would declare neither a winner. Who knows. That was a screw-up, but depending on the SOL and the rules relating to mandatory counter-claims, res judicata, etc., the claim may not be dead -- but it probably is. The guy might have a claim against his attorney. Too bad he didn't have insurance, if he didn't.

-- Jay Beattie.

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Chalo wrote:
Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them.
So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's
being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a
cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if
anybody gets hurt. That's basic golden-rule level stuff. Exporting
responsibility to the victims is just wrong.

However in this case it appears as though it was the pedestrian who was
responsible who brought the hazard into the situation. Had she NOT been
on her cellphone she most likely would not have stepped into the
bicyclist's way. Had that been a motor car or lorry that struck would the
driver of the vehicle been judged to be at fault? Or is the Law stating
that the operator of any vehicle on the road must be aware of and able to
avoid any pedestrian who suddenly steps out into the roadway? Too me that
seems pretty ridiculous as there are many times (and this looks like one
of them) when pedestrians do totally unexpected things. Just because it's
a pedestrian is imho no reason to shift the responsibility/blame to the
operator of a vehicle.

Cheers


It’s only the defendant that claims she was on a phone, who was also
knocked out. So some circumspect with that is probably wise.

The junction has no pedestrian crossing as oddly some central London
Junction happen to have, so at rush hr it would be fairly normal to have
people attempting to cross green light or not.

In short the more is know about this case generally the less sympathetic
folks tend to be to the cyclist, both lawyers have blog posts, if one
wishes to wallow in what is fairly sad tail.

The take home really is get legal advice rather than assuming you’ll be
fine.

Roger Merriman

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On 6/28/2019 9:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
The two rules are "looser pays" and pure comparative fault, and the mistake was not counter-claiming for his own damages. "Looser pays" is a fine rule...

I don't usually bother to note spelling mistakes. But you want "loser"
not "looser."

For whatever reason, that's a very common mistake, and I know several
very intelligent people who always make that mistake. But it probably
matters most to an attorney.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On 6/28/2019 5:46 AM, Chalo wrote:
Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers.

The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if anybody gets hurt. That's basic golden-rule level stuff. Exporting responsibility to the victims is just wrong.

I can appreciate that line of thinking; but you have to account for the
possibility of someone attempting suicide or self harm by jumping in
front of a moving vehicle.

For an extreme example, that happens fairly regularly with freight
trains, and it wouldn't be fair to blame the train engineer.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Sue or go bankrupt?
 

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 8:15:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2019 9:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
The two rules are "looser pays" and pure comparative fault, and the mistake was not counter-claiming for his own damages. "Looser pays" is a fine rule...

I don't usually bother to note spelling mistakes. But you want "loser"
not "looser."

For whatever reason, that's a very common mistake, and I know several
very intelligent people who always make that mistake. But it probably
matters most to an attorney.

I know the difference, but I make typos too -- and I am a terrible speller. I blame it on President Kennedy.

-- Jay Beattie.