Raise the Hammer

Actually not so rare. Ergo the case in the paper. There is no suggestion that the woman was drunk - and in fact I read she voluntarily submitted to a breathalyzer which fairly conclusively established that she had not been drinking.

For a philosophy to be valid, it must be non-contradictory; that is, it must be consistent with its own proposal.

The common law does not deal in absolutes particularly as it relates to relative responsibilities. People can be anywhere from 0-100% responsible for their actions depending upon the circumstances.

The fundamental principal of tort law is to put an injured person back to where they were based on relative responsibilities.

So, if a person is 50% responsible for another’s injuries, they must pay 50% of the damages.

If the driver of the car that struck the cyclist is 50% to blame, she will pay for 50% of the cyclists damages. If the cyclist is found to be 50% to blame for the driver’s injuries, the cyclist will have to pay 50% of the drivers damages. This is well known in tort law in all common law jurisdictions and it is hardly surprising that an injured driver can sue a cyclist or a pedestrian. Ultimately it stands for the proposition that we are all held accountable for the actions for which we are responsible.

Using "Really's" hypothetical fact situation above, if the child died conclusively because of a delay caused by the cyclist's failure to act properly, the cyclist, whether dead or alive, would be held to be responsible for the child’s death – not the driver of the car.

It is hardly shocking to the law that the lady who struck the cyclists and allegedly suffers severe psychological trauma as a consequence, could win a significant damage award if in the end it is found that the cyclists are found to be responsible for the accident.

Let the Court, which is usually a judge and a jury, decide.

Comment edited by notlloyd on 2014-05-01 18:14:02