How very different
rmhodv
Posts: 83
Comments
-
-
This article is written by somweone who has not got a clue what they are talking about
Strict liability is not what is described in this article.
What the article calls "strict liability" is simply a reversal of the burden of proof
In cases of strict liability, the motorist would always be liable even if they had done no wrong - eg sitting in parked car and cyclist rides into the parked car- motorist would still be liable.
Strict liability is not supported by the CTC. I can't say whether any of the other organisations support it.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Now it's raining more than ever....“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Love it!
rmhodv - if you run a search on the forum for strict liability, and use the 'all terms' search, you'll see that discussion of it has been rather controversial in the past.0 -
Yeah, I stumbled across this earlier when looking at the 'What's that Highway Code rule about vulnerable road users?' thread posted by Jameylost_in_thought wrote:rmhodv - if you run a search on the forum for strict liability, and use the 'all terms' search, you'll see that discussion of it has been rather controversial in the past.
Subject closed then0 -
The reversal of the burden of proof is a good idea IMHO - strict liability is not and is unfairWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
TailWindHome wrote:Now it's raining more than ever....
You can stand under my umbrella...0