|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On 6/28/2019 10:15 AM, 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 assume those originate from some looser with autocorrect turned on. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
AMuzi writes:
On 6/28/2019 10:15 AM, 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 assume those originate from some looser with autocorrect turned on. Waive goodbye to manual spelling, that's for looser Luddites. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
Frank Krygowski wrote:
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. In the suicide by train scenario, I would think the train engineer could possibly sue the next of kin of the deceased for the post traumatic stress caused by killing someone with absolutely no way to prevent it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
jbeattie wrote:
"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. If his claim is dead, too bad he hadn't told her right away of his violent cousins, if he had any. But I'm afraid he's so much of a looser nice guy he'd just lose more money on new at tourneys [note bike tech]. So the real question might be ... should he just stay in France because their system fits a loser statist better who didn't smell a dangerous London bankster b**ch when it was clearly labeled "finance," or should he innocently ride out his personal insolvency driving a white van for a year ... near London Bridge? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On 6/28/2019 1:03 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes: On 6/28/2019 10:15 AM, 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 assume those originate from some looser with autocorrect turned on. Waive goodbye to manual spelling, that's for looser Luddites. I'm ready for our robot AI overlords. Bring it on! Let's roll! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 12:20:02 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: 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. In the suicide by train scenario, I would think the train engineer could possibly sue the next of kin of the deceased for the post traumatic stress caused by killing someone with absolutely no way to prevent it. I've got a suicide by truck case where the truck driver sued the estate for PTSD. It was a low dollar policy, and the estate's insurer paid. This was the second time I've seen this kind of case -- both involving trucks. If I were going to commit suicide by truck, I'd want to leave my family with a plausible wrongful death case. No suicide notes -- maybe a note saying "going for a walk on the highway. I'll be super careful!" -- Jay Beattie. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:
Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist. 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. Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission. Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched a counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more important than any thing else. Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and a ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have created. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 13:04:48 -0700, jbeattie wrote:
If I were going to commit suicide by truck, I'd want to leave my family with a plausible wrongful death case. No suicide notes -- maybe a note saying "going for a walk on the highway. I'll be super careful!" That woud be sus. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sue or go bankrupt?
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote: Thing is, a ped is wildly unlikely to hurt anyone by running into them. Fundamentally false premise, e.g. ped into ped and ped into bicyclist. So it's not the ped's ethical responsibility to mitigate the risk that's being imposed unilaterally by a cyclist, the same way it's not a cyclist's ethical duty to mitigate the lethal risks unilaterally imposed by car drivers. The one who brings the hazard into a situation is the one responsible if anybody gets hurt. Which was the ped . Their action lead to the collission. Your logic is badly flawed. Example: Hunter in the forest, countryside, hunting. There is also a known and used trail, path, through the woods, countryside. Hunter fires the gun. Hits walker on or near the trail. Lets say near because the walker stepped 10 feet off the trail to do his business behind a bush. So by your very bad logic, the pedestrian is at fault because he walked into the gun shot. Or an area where gun shots are possible. He was officially "off" the trail, being 10 feet off to do his business. Once the ped launched the civil suit, the cyclist should have launched a counter suit. This is how the law is an ass as is judges $$$ as more important than any thing else. Rule one, if you get knocked down here is to wait for an ambulance and a ride to hospital for medical examinsation and never make light or underplay any symptions. This is the world that the arseholes have created. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LemonD's Yellowstone Club Bankrupt | dave a | Racing | 12 | June 16th 09 12:00 PM |
Americans are bankrupt. | [email protected] | General | 59 | September 29th 05 10:38 AM |
China posed to buy bankrupt Huffy | [email protected] | General | 13 | July 1st 05 10:43 PM |