A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sue or go bankrupt?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 28th 19, 06:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 06:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 07:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 08:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 08:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 08:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old June 28th 19, 09:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old June 29th 19, 03:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old June 29th 19, 03:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default 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  
Old June 29th 19, 03:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.