Negligence and cycle helmets

A controversial topic, of course. I wonder if we'll ever be told the
outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...r-cycle-helmet

A Connecticut driver serving a 10-year sentence for manslaughter after he
ran over and killed a 14-year-old cyclist is suing the victim's parents for
negligence because they allowed their son to ride without a helmet. David
Weaving, 48, has issued legal proceedings from his prison cell against his
victim's parents, accusing them of "contributory negligence".
The suit demands $15,000 (£9,300) in damages, claiming that Stephen and
Joanne Kenney's failure to protect their son Matthew was a factor in his
death and thus caused the prisoner "great mental and emotional pain and
suffering".

On Nov 16, 2:31*pm, "The Todal" wrote:
A controversial topic, of course. *I wonder if we'll ever be told the
outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...v/15/killer-dr...

A Connecticut driver serving a 10-year sentence for manslaughter after he
ran over and killed a 14-year-old cyclist is suing the victim's parents for
negligence because they allowed their son to ride without a helmet. David
Weaving, 48, has issued legal proceedings from his prison cell against his
victim's parents, accusing them of "contributory negligence".
The suit demands $15,000 (£9,300) in damages, claiming that Stephen and
Joanne Kenney's failure to protect their son Matthew was a factor in his
death and thus caused the prisoner "great mental and emotional pain and
suffering".

what happened to "take your victim as you find him ?"

The Todal wrote:
A controversial topic, of course. I wonder if we'll ever be told the
outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...r-cycle-helmet


Its pretty much clear cut what the outcome will be as the Connecticut
helmet law specifically states:

"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection
shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the
parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil
action."

So at least the legislators had some common sense about them when they
passed their helmet law.

Tony

On 16/11/2010 15:07, Tony Raven wrote:

The Todal wrote:

A controversial topic, of course. I wonder if we'll ever be told the
outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...r-cycle-helmet

Its pretty much clear cut what the outcome will be as the Connecticut helmet
law specifically states:

"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not
be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the
child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action."

So at least the legislators had some common sense about them when they passed
their helmet law.

Maybe, maybe not. There must be more to that law than that little bit of that
subsection.

It would be more relevant to a claim against the driver (since that is the
only obvious sense in which such - alleged - negligence could credibly be
considered "contributory").

As I understand it (and taking the report verbatim), it is not the failure
(by the child) to wear a helmet which is the issue. It is the alleged failure
of supervision on the part of the parents.

Is there anything in it?

Who knows? It is an American case and so notoriously difficult to predict.
McDonald's nowadays include the warning "Contents may be hot" on their paper
coffee cups because of an American lawsuit by someone who scalded themselves
with such a cup..

On 16/11/2010 14:31, The Todal wrote:
A controversial topic, of course. I wonder if we'll ever be told the
outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...r-cycle-helmet

A Connecticut driver serving a 10-year sentence for manslaughter after he
ran over and killed a 14-year-old cyclist is suing the victim's parents for
negligence because they allowed their son to ride without a helmet. David
Weaving, 48, has issued legal proceedings from his prison cell against his
victim's parents, accusing them of "contributory negligence".
The suit demands $15,000 (£9,300) in damages, claiming that Stephen and
Joanne Kenney's failure to protect their son Matthew was a factor in his
death and thus caused the prisoner "great mental and emotional pain and
suffering".



Do we really care what happens in a foreign country and has no relevance
whatsoever to this one?

--
Moving things in still pictures

JNugent wrote:

Its pretty much clear cut what the outcome will be as the
Connecticut helmet law specifically states:

"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection
shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part
of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in
any civil action."

So at least the legislators had some common sense about them when
they passed their helmet law.

Maybe, maybe not. There must be more to that law than that little bit
of that subsection.

There is and if you can find anything relevant in the rest of it be my
guest:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/helmet/helm_ct.htm


As I understand it (and taking the report verbatim), it is not the
failure (by the child) to wear a helmet which is the issue. It is the
alleged failure of supervision on the part of the parents.

No, the hand written submission by the plaintiff claims contributory
negligence by the parents for allowing their son to ride without a
helmet and consequential “great mental and emotional pain and suffering"
and loss of "capacity to carry on in life's activities", wrongful arrest
and imprisonment.


Is there anything in it?

Who knows? It is an American case and so notoriously difficult to
predict. McDonald's nowadays include the warning "Contents may be
hot" on their paper coffee cups because of an American lawsuit by
someone who scalded themselves with such a cup..


However in this case the law is clear that anything related to not
wearing a helmet is inadmissible in a civil case which this is. If it
ever gets to Court the defendant's lawyer will object immediately that
the evidence is inadmissible and with it any claim of contributory
negligence.

Tony

On 16/11/2010 16:06, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

[in response to:]

Its pretty much clear cut what the outcome will be as the
Connecticut helmet law specifically states:
"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection
shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part
of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in
any civil action."
So at least the legislators had some common sense about them when
they passed their helmet law.

Maybe, maybe not. There must be more to that law than that little bit
of that subsection.

There is and if you can find anything relevant in the rest of it be my guest:

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/helmet/helm_ct.htm

As I'm sure you have already noticed, that's not really an Act. It's a
web-page in which some (but by no means all) of some statute is discussed or
mentioned.

I would have been fairly sure that an American state legislature would not
draft a Bill as badly as that page is written.

Read this bit:

"(a) For the purposes of this section, "bicycle" means any vehicle propelled
by the person riding the same by foot or hand power.(b) No child fifteen
years of age or under shall operate a bicycle on the traveled portion of any
highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms to
the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards
Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear
for Use in Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a
violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by
this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the
part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any
civil action.

"(c) A law enforcement officer may issue a verbal warning to the parent or
guardian of a child that such child has failed to comply with the provisions
of subsection (b) of this section."

Given that non-compliance with the requirement to use a helmet "shall not be
a violation or an offense", what would the verbal "warning" be about, one
wonders?

As I understand it (and taking the report verbatim), it is not the failure
(by the child) to wear a helmet which is the issue. It is the
alleged failure of supervision on the part of the parents.

No, the hand written submission by the plaintiff claims contributory
negligence by the parents for allowing their son to ride without a helmet and
consequential “great mental and emotional pain and suffering" and loss of
"capacity to carry on in life's activities", wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

I saw that bit. How is it different from the way I described it?

Is there anything in it?
Who knows? It is an American case and so notoriously difficult to predict.
McDonald's nowadays include the warning "Contents may be
hot" on their paper coffee cups because of an American lawsuit by
someone who scalded themselves with such a cup..

However in this case the law is clear that anything related to not wearing a
helmet is inadmissible in a civil case which this is. If it ever gets to
Court the defendant's lawyer will object immediately that the evidence is
inadmissible and with it any claim of contributory negligence.

That's if the law says that (and it may or may not do so). The page you cited
is not actually the law. Or at least, it certainly isn't all of it.

It's actually safer to ride WITHOUT a helmet.

On Nov 16, 3:07*pm, Tony Raven wrote:
The Todal wrote:
A controversial topic, of course. *I wonder if we'll ever be told the
*outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...v/15/killer-dr...

Its pretty much clear cut what the outcome will be as the Connecticut
helmet law specifically states:

"Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection
shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the
parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil
action."

®i©ardo wrote:

On 16/11/2010 14:31, The Todal wrote:
A controversial topic, of course. I wonder if we'll ever be told
the outcome of this litigation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ov/15/killer-d
river-sues-over-cycle-helmet

A Connecticut driver ....

Do we really care what happens in a foreign country and has no
relevance whatsoever to this one?

That might depend on if you read it in uk.legal or uk.rec.cycling, I
guess. But then again, it's a merkin lawsuit so probably OT for both
crossposted groups.

--
Paul - xxx mobile ....

JNugent wrote:

[in response to:]

As I'm sure you have already noticed, that's not really an Act. It's a
web-page in which some (but by no means all) of some statute is
discussed or mentioned.


You're not very familiar with US law then? This is typical and it's a
section of a much larger document covering a range of different laws.

I would have been fairly sure that an American state legislature would
not draft a Bill as badly as that page is written.


From the country that drafted legislation defining pi to henceforth be
3.0?


That's if the law says that (and it may or may not do so). The page
you cited is not actually the law. Or at least, it certainly isn't all
of it.

I know you love to cavil about the minutest details but feel free to a)
educate yourself on US law and b) download and read the rest of Title 14
to see if there is anything there of relevance.

--
Tony