|
| quote: | Originally posted by geroin
i'm pretty sure even if you hit him it would be his fault anyways, you can just say he was jwalking and you couldn't stop
just a lot of shit and headache to deal with.. |
Okay, now you're in my world (Bodily injury claims are my specialty). Unfortunately, just about every North American jurisdiction (Ontario included) has a Revers Onus of Proof when it comes to collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians. This means that the driver of the automobile is automatically presumed negligent unless they can prove that the pedestrian was negligent. This is exceedingly difficult to do (out of several hundred pedestrian accidents I've handled I've only gotten our driver completely off on four... and two of those were suicides). In a situation like this the courts would likely find the pedestrian to be anywhere from 10-25% liable for the accident (10% for crossing not at a pedestrian crosswalk is the standard... it could be upped to 25% depending on a number of other factors). Ultimately, the courts take the view that the driver should be ever vigilant for pedestrians and always be able to avoid them. Personally, I think the judges are just being lazy or overly sympathetic (judges tend to want to give injured people money and in this case the insurance company is the only one who has any); however, that is the reality of the situation at present.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down 
|
|