Car accident

2»

Comments

  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,206
    markymark550 wrote:
    actually, I just looked it up, and most places have laws in place stating that a pedestrian can't just walk out into traffic and must yield if going into the road wouldn't give a driver enough time to react appropriately

    Right so they would issue a jay walking ticket, but comparative negligence applies I believe.

    the pedestrian gets the sympathy 90% of the time, unless its someone trying to kill themself
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,072
    Get_Right wrote:
    Right so they would issue a jay walking ticket, but comparative negligence applies I believe.

    the pedestrian gets the sympathy 90% of the time, unless its someone trying to kill themself

    so what do they say "oh fuck'mm he was just trying to kill himself ? :)...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,234
    Get_Right wrote:
    Right so they would issue a jay walking ticket, but comparative negligence applies I believe.

    the pedestrian gets the sympathy 90% of the time, unless its someone trying to kill themself
    If the driver is following all rules of the road, comparitive negligence does not apply as the driver's actions did not cause the accident. In this case the pedestrian is 100% at fault. This is what the original post sounded like and if a lawsuit is brought up, any good lawyer should be able to prove why his client shouldn't be financially responsible (especially if witnesses testify) if the lawsuit isn't dismissed before going to trial.

    The driver would have to be impaired or doing something else like changing lanes for comparitive negligence to apply. Although, if impaired, the driver faces worse things than a personal injury lawsuit.
  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,206
    markymark550 wrote:
    If the driver is following all rules of the road, comparitive negligence does not apply as the driver's actions did not cause the accident. In this case the pedestrian is 100% at fault. This is what the original post sounded like and if a lawsuit is brought up, any good lawyer should be able to prove why his client shouldn't be financially responsible (especially if witnesses testify) if the lawsuit isn't dismissed before going to trial.

    The driver would have to be impaired or doing something else like changing lanes for comparitive negligence to apply. Although, if impaired, the driver faces worse things than a personal injury lawsuit.

    Isnt it for the jury or judge to decide if the drivers actions caused the incident?

    C'mon you know its never that simple, and often no tickets are issued, so its not typically as clear cut as that. Anyway, I dont wait to write a treatise on the subject. In my experience, pedestrians are sympathetic and when hit by a vehicle, tend to get the benefit of the doubt (absent uncontroveted, crystal clear evidence to the contrary as you pointed out).

Categories