Strict Liability - mitigation - etc etc - Helmets and the legal system

Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

On Feb 10, 7:11*am, Anton Berlin wrote:
Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. *Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

*In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

The general concept is known as "comparative negligence" or
"contributory negligence" (which are not the same).
Check Wikipedia
It varies from one jurisdiction to another. Typically not wearing a
helmet would only be a mitigating factor (a defense) in jurisdictions
where helmet use is mandated by law (often the case for kids), but
some statutes also expressly preclude such a defense being presented.
Related concept see "thin skulled plaintiff."

DR

On Feb 10, 11:53*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 10, 7:11*am, Anton Berlin wrote:



Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. *Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

*In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

The general concept is known as "comparative negligence" or
"contributory negligence" (which are not the same).
Check Wikipedia
It varies from one jurisdiction to another. Typically not wearing a
helmet would only be a mitigating factor (a defense) *in jurisdictions
where helmet use is mandated by law (often the case for kids), but
some statutes also expressly preclude such a defense being presented.
Related concept *see "thin skulled plaintiff."

DR

Thanks for the clarification. I think you're right.

On Feb 11, 10:45*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Feb 10, 11:53*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:



On Feb 10, 7:11*am, Anton Berlin wrote:

Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. *Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

*In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

The general concept is known as "comparative negligence" or
"contributory negligence" (which are not the same).
Check Wikipedia
It varies from one jurisdiction to another. Typically not wearing a
helmet would only be a mitigating factor (a defense) *in jurisdictions
where helmet use is mandated by law (often the case for kids), but
some statutes also expressly preclude such a defense being presented.
Related concept *see "thin skulled plaintiff."

DR

Thanks for the clarification. *I think you're right.

That's not how RBR works, something's broken!

On Feb 11, 3:45*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
On Feb 10, 11:53*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:





On Feb 10, 7:11*am, Anton Berlin wrote:

Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. *Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

*In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

The general concept is known as "comparative negligence" or
"contributory negligence" (which are not the same).
Check Wikipedia
It varies from one jurisdiction to another. Typically not wearing a
helmet would only be a mitigating factor (a defense) *in jurisdictions
where helmet use is mandated by law (often the case for kids), but
some statutes also expressly preclude such a defense being presented.
Related concept *see "thin skulled plaintiff."

DR

Thanks for the clarification. *I think you're right.

Actually there is a subtle distinction that I didn't really address.

In contrast to the concepts I described which apportion fault between
the parties, damages may also be "mitigated" (to use your word). In
other words the defendant may be 100% legally responsible for all
damages, but they may be reduced if, for example, the plaintiff could
have done something to decrease those damages. And just being a
plaintiff who is more susceptible to being "damaged" doesn't do it -
that's the "thin skulled plaintiff" concept.

I doubt that a no-helmet argument could be raised in the context of
simply "mitigating" damages.

DR

On Feb 12, 4:37*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 11, 3:45*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:



On Feb 10, 11:53*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:11*am, Anton Berlin wrote:

Just a layman's understanding but there is a legal concept that - as
an example - a multi unit garage is on fire and there is no danger for
you to move your car out of the space it occupies before the fire
spreads to that area. *Having the notice and ability, the law expects
that one would mitigate their damages by acting in a reasonable
fashion to avoid the damages.

Would the same concept apply in cycling accident ?

Is it expected that just as a cyclist that runs red lights and stop
signs may be partially even totally at fault for their injuries.

*In the same fashion is the ability to collect from an errant driver
(being struck in some other situation, experiencing a road hazard)
would be lessened by the cyclist not 'mitigating his damages" by not
wearing a helmet?

Does one give up a legal edge by not wearing a helmet.?

Of course I understand that it boils down to what a jury will agree to
but my perception is that most people believe that cyclists benefit
from the use of helmets and under this concept you (or your survivors)
benefit from the use of a helmet, not running stops, etc.

The general concept is known as "comparative negligence" or
"contributory negligence" (which are not the same).
Check Wikipedia
It varies from one jurisdiction to another. Typically not wearing a
helmet would only be a mitigating factor (a defense) *in jurisdictions
where helmet use is mandated by law (often the case for kids), but
some statutes also expressly preclude such a defense being presented.
Related concept *see "thin skulled plaintiff."

DR

Thanks for the clarification. *I think you're right.

Actually there is a subtle distinction that I didn't really address.

In contrast to the concepts I described which apportion fault between
the parties, damages may also be "mitigated" (to use your word). *In
other words the defendant may be 100% legally responsible for all
damages, but they may be reduced if, for example, the plaintiff could
have done something to decrease those damages. *And just being a
plaintiff who is more susceptible to being "damaged" doesn't do it -
that's the "thin skulled plaintiff" concept.

I doubt that a no-helmet argument could be raised in the context of
simply "mitigating" damages.

DR

Looks like you are reading from Butterworths, Pitmans or similar legal
guides. That's cheating.