Sue or go bankrupt?

Weird legal news from London:

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


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.