Interesting case.. green light, under the speed limit, still

[5lab]

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/23636349.jud...

Somewhat surprised any blame got attached to the driver here, conditions must have been really bad for them to have been shown liable, surely?

[KungFuPanda]

Some judges can be really Claimant friendly such as in this case.

[Cockaigne]

Sounds like a civil case where balance of probabilities take place instead of right or wrong of criminal courts. Is that what you thought OP?

[KungFuPanda]

Cockaigne said:

Sounds like a civil case where balance of probabilities take place instead of right or wrong of criminal courts. Is that what you thought OP?

I don’t think the balance of probabilities were even considered in this case. It seems that the accident circumstances were accepted by both parties involved and the judge merely decided on the apportionment of liability.

[whimsical ninja]

There was a similar case a few years ago about apportion of blame. In that case, if I recall, it was a driver (possibly disqualified?) who was doing 40+ in a 20, but the judge accepted the evidence of a traffic officer who said that 20 would have been an inappropriate speed for the conditions and that the maximum safe speed would have been about 15mph or so.

Edit: found it. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1503...

Edited by whimsical ninja on Thursday 6th July 00:23

[Cockaigne]

KungFuPanda said:

I don’t think the balance of probabilities were even considered in this case. It seems that the accident circumstances were accepted by both parties involved and the judge merely decided on the apportionment of liability.

''“The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not.''

Driving within speed limit BUT too fast for conditions seems it was.

''He said he had been asked to make decisions about liability – he has not made any ruling about the size of any damages award.''

The gist being, the driver was driving at an excessive, unsafe and unreasonable speed NOT at a criminal provable level, but enough at a civil level to prove liability for driving at an excessive, unsafe and unreasonable speed.

Edited by Cockaigne on Thursday 6th July 00:25

[Grumps.]

It's always someone elses fault.

fking ridiculous.

[bigothunter]

Judge Dexter Dias said:

The judge ruled that Dr Chandran was in breach of her “duty of care” towards the child and was 60% liable for the incident.

He said the child had stepped on to a pedestrian crossing when the light was green for traffic and was 40% liable.

Driver would be 100% liable if they hit a pedestrian on the pavement.

Driver was 60% liable for hitting a pedestrian who jaywalked into the road.

QED pedestrians have priority to wander across roads designed for traffic. They carry limited responsibility for their actions.

We have reached a new level of anti-car attitude and legal ruling.

Makes me wonder what would happen on a motorway after Report of Pedestrians warning and speed limit reductions (60 or even 50). If a drunk stumbled into the carriageway and got mown down, who would have the most liability - pedestrian or driver?

Could find yourself on a charge of manslaughter

[Sheepshanks]

bigothunter said:

QED pedestrians have priority to wander across roads designed for traffic.

That's just been put into the Highway Code.

[Donbot]

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

There are plenty of times and places where doing the speed limit would be inappropriate.

[Sheepshanks]

KungFuPanda said:

Some judges can be really Claimant friendly such as in this case.

I know it shouldn't make any difference, but they're bound to have it in their minds that it's an insurance company who will pick up the tab.

[bigothunter]

Donbot said:

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

There are plenty of times and places where doing the speed limit would be inappropriate.

Do pedestrians have responsibility for their actions?

Should jaywalking be legally acceptable?

[vikingaero]

Countersue the mother who brought the action on behalf of the girl for child cruelty/neglect for failure to educate the child on road safety?

[IJWS15]

Essentially the same as always - just because there is something/someone in the road you do not have the right to drive into it/them.

I was taught to be very cautious when children were near the edge of the footpath - they don't know the dangers.

This driver wasn't cautious, after all 30 is the limit, not the target.

[Sheepshanks]

Donbot said:

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

Case near me where a van driver came around a bend at 50MPH and t-boned a car exiting a country lane, killing the car driver.

Max visibility the car driver had was 35 metres and at the inquest the police accident investigator said no blame could be attached to the van driver as he wasn't exceeding the speed limit.


OTOH a mate, who is a cop, had a crash at traffic lights with a taxi that came through a red light. He was told they couldn't take action against the taxi driver as they couldn't prove he'd driven through a red lght but they could take action against my mate as he'd admitted driving through a green light when it wasn't safe to do so!

[Slowboathome]

"Excessive and unreasonable speed"

Jesus Christ.

[Donbot]

bigothunter said:

Donbot said:

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

There are plenty of times and places where doing the speed limit would be inappropriate.

Do pedestrians have responsibility for their actions?

Yes

Should jaywalking be legally acceptable?

Yes

[98elise]

bigothunter said:

Donbot said:

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

There are plenty of times and places where doing the speed limit would be inappropriate.

Do pedestrians have responsibility for their actions?

Should jaywalking be legally acceptable?

They do, hence it not being judged as 100% the driver fault.That doesn't excuse driving too fast for the conditions though.

[bigothunter]

Slowboathome said:

"Excessive and unreasonable speed"

Jesus Christ.

This ruling suggests that speeds in excess of 20 mph are excessive and unreasonable except when conditions are nearly perfect: dry road, well illuminated with good visibility. Perhaps absence of potholes could be added for good measure.

It's a precedent for new territory especially if cross-referenced in other cases.

Should we make the commitment to obey Twenty is Plenty unless conditions are close to ideal?

[98elise]

Donbot said:

On the other hand you shouldn't just blindly drive at the speed limit and expect to get away with mowing down anyone who steps onto it with impunity.

There are plenty of times and places where doing the speed limit would be inappropriate.

I agree however lots of people don't.

There was a thread on here where a surprising amount of people said they don't consider the stopping distance when driving, ie they would take blind corner at speed without thinking about what may be around it.

Personally I drive so that I can stop in the distance I can see. I'm not in any way a slow driver. I just consider it sensible to be able to stop if I come across an obstruction in the road.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 6th July 13:58