Running red lights can get you hurt..
Comments
-
If I stick my hand in a fire I expect it to get burnt, If I jump a red light I accept I am putting myself in danger. I don't care if the award is 50:50 or 80:20. Why society accepts that people should be allowed compensation for their own stupidity is beyond me. B should be happy he isn't 6 foot under or spending the rest of his days drinking his dinner through a straw.If I know you, and I like you, you can borrow my bike box for £30 a week. PM for details.0
-
anonymousblackfg wrote:If I stick my hand in a fire I expect it to get burnt, If I jump a red light I accept I am putting myself in danger. I don't care if the award is 50:50 or 80:20. Why society accepts that people should be allowed compensation for their own stupidity is beyond me. B should be happy he isn't 6 foot under or spending the rest of his days drinking his dinner through a straw.
Surely the point is that he's being compensated for the additional damage that he would not have sustained if the taxi driver had been driving alertly and according to the law?0 -
Aidy wrote:anonymousblackfg wrote:If I stick my hand in a fire I expect it to get burnt, If I jump a red light I accept I am putting myself in danger. I don't care if the award is 50:50 or 80:20. Why society accepts that people should be allowed compensation for their own stupidity is beyond me. B should be happy he isn't 6 foot under or spending the rest of his days drinking his dinner through a straw.
Surely the point is that he's being compensated for the additional damage that he would not have sustained if the taxi driver had been driving alertly and according to the law?
Had T not been at fault at all, B would have got 0%.
There is an argument that says that he "deserved" nothing because if you RLJ you should are deliberately taking on a higher degree of risk and should accept the consequences. On the flip-side, is it reasonable to conclude that that higher level of risk includes "gloriously" speeding drivers? Probably not, hence 20/80.0 -
Cyclist shouldn't have got a penny.
Why should he get compensation for injuries sustained while breaking the law?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Cyclist shouldn't have got a penny.
Why should he get compensation for injuries sustained while breaking the law?
But then equally, why should the taxi driver not have any liability for accidents that occured whilst the taxi driver was breaking the law?
Could just as easily say "If you're speeding and you're involved in an accident, it's your fault."0 -
When assessing negligence - that of the taxi driver, the court will not have regard to whether the the cyclist should have been there in the first place.
In the basic terms the test is: Was the driver driving negligently? Yes - he was 'gloriously breaking the speeding limit'. Did his negligence cause the accident on a purely factual level? Yes - the taxi driver hit the cyclist.
To say 'but he wouldn't have hit the cyclist if the cyclist wasn't breaking the law' is irrelevant for establishing negligence. However, it is very relevant for establishing the quantum of the liability.
So, then you assess: are there any factors that can mitigate the taxi's liability? Why yes, the cyclist was breaking the law. He shouldn't have been there in the first place. Therefore taxi's liability reduced by 80%. In other circumstances it could be reduced by 100%. Say, if the cyclist was riding on the wrong side of the road, no-handed, with headphones and with his eyes closed...maybe.0