How very different

rmhodv

Strict liability - why not?

lost_in_thought

Oo-er.

*gets popcorn*

jonginge

Here ya go, Lit

spen666

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.

tailwindhome

Now it's raining more than ever....

lost_in_thought

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.

rmhodv

Yeah, I stumbled across this earlier when looking at the 'What's that Highway Code rule about vulnerable road users?' thread posted by Jamey

lost_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 then

spen666

The reversal of the burden of proof is a good idea IMHO - strict liability is not and is unfair

kelsen

TailWindHome wrote:

Now it's raining more than ever....

You can stand under my umbrella...