Nah, for me the tipping point was Sit T-Cups’ refusal to take any responsibility—responsibility for knowing the rules of the road, and responsibility for his role in causing the accident.
I’ve done things that are illegal and/or stupid, but if an accident had resulted from my doing so, I’d feel ashamed and apologetic.
In other words, what mhendo said:
However, I don’t really think this Pit thread is necessary, as everything that needed be said, with the possible exception of one or two "You idiot!"s, could be, and was, said in the original thread.
It’s the concept of contributory negligence you’re not comprehending. There really isn’t any point in playing hypothetical games with you in this regard. My point was that** T-Cup** could be found to have contributed to his injury by his negligence. That’s more in tune with the topic of the thread than your wild ass assumptions and blatant misstatements are.
My comments were in reply to Mithras’ statements, which were specifically about pedestrians and how he opined that pedestrians had the obligation of safety on the sidewalk. Since T-Cups was not a pedestrian but a cyclist this did not apply to him.
The cherry on top of Sir T-Cup’s juvenile attitude is this statement:
The guy was accommodating enough to work it out between the two of them, even to buy him a new bike. Most mature adults wouldn’t see a hidden agenda of nose-rubbing and humiliation in those actions.
Tell me more about this pedestrian obligation of safety. Are you referring to due diligence by a driver? Or are you seeking to establish that there is a strict liability standard for anyone who crosses a sidewalk with a motor vehicle? Does contributory negligence give rise to a partial defense, or offset, in a case where a pedestrian was injured through some fault of his own in such instances?
Pretty much. Why is this a problem? Cars have, or should have, the strictest of safety obligations when they are on roads they belong on. It is even more so when they are crossing sidewalks.
Such as what? Unless the pedestrian* deliberately dives in front of the vehicle or takes some criminal action (carjacking) I can’t really see any scenario that relieves the driver of any of the safety obligation in that position. I couldn’t find any such cases.
Why is this hard to grasp?
I should point out, once again, that a cyclist on the sidewalk is not a pedestrian, no matter how much they consider themselves to be one, and does not benefit from the driver’s obligations.
Guys, guys, stay on topic. Sir T-cups is the pwecious snowflake here.
Am I the only one who noticed that Just a week ago he was pitting Southern women for having the audicity to call him a Yankee/assume he was hittin’ on 'em/dismiss him. And smugly zips outta the pit when things are not going his way? Self-centered over-entitled prick is a self-centered over-entitled prick. Simple as that. And he took that poor old dudes money and has no problem with it. Amazing.
I’m sure you can cite the cases and legal statutes that make this ‘opinion’. The only cases that went with your ‘Contributory Negligence’ involved pedestrians on streets and highways - not sidewalks.
The Florida code came up first in a vehicle code search, so I’ll just use that
The standard you have quotes is “due care” not one of “strict liability.” Your earlier statement that (liability is) “100% in the court of the driver” applies a strict liability standard to drivers. You’ve failed to prove that that’s the law.
I’m not going to explain the difference between due care and strict liability as it’s really not important to me whether you get it or not.
Driving my 20,000 pound armored vehicle down a one way street, crossing another one way street on a green light. Guy on bike zips across the front of my truck going in the wrong direction on that one-way, looking in the wrong direction. Breaking several laws in the process. Very nearly became a water balloon on the front of my truck. Scared the shit out of me, made me very angry and upset (post adrenaline rush).
My fault at all? No. My responsiblity if I hit him? Zero. Wouldn’t change the fact that I would have killed a man with my truck and got to watch it in full living color right in front of my face.
Driving up a different one way, in the Bus lane that goes counter to normal traffic flow. Business woman steps off the curb in front of me. Guy next to her grabs her by the collar and yanks her off the street. I get to watch her eyes go from anger (at him for yanking her) to terror (as she sees me that close) in a fraction of a second. Again, my responsibility? None at all. But the same net effect if I’d have hit her.
Walking myself a couple of months ago, looked toward traffic on a one way, then stepped onto the road. Failed to see the bus coming from the other direction in the bus lane. It honked, I stepped back. My responsibility if it had hit me? 100%
Being a pedestrian doesn’t absolve you of any obligation to be aware of your surroundings or automatically make everyone else responsible for your injuries or death.
I don’t think anyone said they did. All of your examples involve pedestrians (and a cyclist) in the road, not on the sidewalk. So why are you bringing it up?
You’re not grasping that there is a difference in the standard of care the law requires in operating a motor vehicle, and what your opinion requires with respect to operating that vehicle.
You opinion is that there should be a standard of strict liability applied, yet your cites clearly state the standard is “due care.” The two standards are different. The result of applying the two standards is quite different. If the defendant was operating a nuclear power plant, the court might find a standard of strict liability applied for their negligence. But not for operating a motor vehicle, where the law,* as you’ve cited*, clearly applies a standard of “due care.”
Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up, Mr. Miskatonic, you goddamn retard. Start a new thread if you want to blather on about a situation that has absolutely fuck all to do with the situation in the OP. Yes, I know, someone said some keyword that you feel gives you license to yammer on about hypotheticals involving pedestrians for twenty posts, but you’re boring the fuck out of everybody.
Morgenstern, please stop replying to him. Maybe he’ll go away.
When the difference actually means something to a driver who has hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk who was not suicidal or criminal that might mean something. Otherwise you are game-playing with terminology.
If there was a meaningful difference then you should be able to find cases ‘due care’ meant differing results in the court’s results when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian on the sidewalk. (again barring suicidal or criminal pedestrians).
You’ve tried to handwave this away as ‘my opinion’ and you’ve tried to use dishonest quoting, and your trying obscure this in legal terms. But it doesn’t change things.
Morgenstern, anyone with half a brain understands the distinction you’re making. Now, let’s talk about Sir T-cups. When is he coming back to admit his error and thank everyone for fighting his ignorance so he can continue to enjoy the ability to ride a bicycle? Ahem, legally and responsibly, I should add.