On 6/28/2019 8:35 AM, jbeattie wrote:
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.

"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.



Do you remember the cartoon series "There Oughta Be A Law" ?

Odd results come from otherwise sensible rules every day:

https://ktla.com/2019/06/27/alabama-...ter-goes-free/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971