- 09 Sep 2019 20:10
#15032947
Stupid court of appeal gives red light running driver who hit pedestrian 15% discount.
1) How was the taxi speed ascertained? Merely based on the taxi driver lawyer hired specialist witness opinion? Probably the taxi driver was speeding so even if pedestrian tried to evade the taxi, he would have been hit.
2) No mention of other witnesses or car camera, so how do we know that the pedestrian was guilty of not paying attention to the road etc?
Even the 2 appeal judges argument that the pedestrian should instead hide at the island assumes that the taxi driver will drive straight when most people who blatantly ignore traffic lights are likely intoxicated somewhat and cannot drive straight (there is equal chance that he might have been killed standing inside the traffic island) . The crossing 'island' was also a false idea since there is no pedestrian crossing button fixed, which would mean that the pedestrian would have to cross illegally (more dangerously) if he were to miss his crossing time limit because he had to give way to cars ignoring the red light signal.
In the circumstance given, the appeal judges shouldn't try to be too clever and apply an absurd expectation of the pedestrian being alert like a thief trying to avoid the police, instead, due to lack of evidence that the pedestrian wasn't paying attention, he should be compensated 100%. If any, the pedestrian had lawfully triggered the pedestrian crossing button and waited for his turn to cross but the taxi driver totally ignored all rules and regulations and ignored the traffic light signal to stop totally.
In fact, the victim pedestrian ought to receive punitive damages which he is to donate to a road safety advocacy charity of his choice.
1) How was the taxi speed ascertained? Merely based on the taxi driver lawyer hired specialist witness opinion? Probably the taxi driver was speeding so even if pedestrian tried to evade the taxi, he would have been hit.
2) No mention of other witnesses or car camera, so how do we know that the pedestrian was guilty of not paying attention to the road etc?
Even the 2 appeal judges argument that the pedestrian should instead hide at the island assumes that the taxi driver will drive straight when most people who blatantly ignore traffic lights are likely intoxicated somewhat and cannot drive straight (there is equal chance that he might have been killed standing inside the traffic island) . The crossing 'island' was also a false idea since there is no pedestrian crossing button fixed, which would mean that the pedestrian would have to cross illegally (more dangerously) if he were to miss his crossing time limit because he had to give way to cars ignoring the red light signal.
In the circumstance given, the appeal judges shouldn't try to be too clever and apply an absurd expectation of the pedestrian being alert like a thief trying to avoid the police, instead, due to lack of evidence that the pedestrian wasn't paying attention, he should be compensated 100%. If any, the pedestrian had lawfully triggered the pedestrian crossing button and waited for his turn to cross but the taxi driver totally ignored all rules and regulations and ignored the traffic light signal to stop totally.
In fact, the victim pedestrian ought to receive punitive damages which he is to donate to a road safety advocacy charity of his choice.
Spoiler: show
~ Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"- (NIV)