'Pedestrian' at fault

Procrastastudy

Sorry I tried digging up the thread buts its lost in the ether...

Think it was Chops and I having the arguemnt about pedestrains never being at fault but we couldn't nail down a case (IIRC) - I was wrong (big suprise!)

McEleney v McCarron (unrep?) Supreme Court 21st December 1992

MagicSean

This one?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056571160

Procrastastudy

Nope it was a later one - I think I took my assertion from that one - doing my typical thing of not checking it.

Thanks though.

daenerysstormborn3

By "never at fault", under what circumstances are you referring to?

Procrastastudy

We were discussing a motor vehicle vs pedestrian collision and the fact that it's (almost) never the pedestrians fault for various reasons. It's been done to death in quite a few threads but given I started a new thread I can't really complain if it starts up again.

The general thrust was a motorist must be adept at hazard perception and there is practically no scenario where a motorist could claim it was impossible to perceive the hazard that resulted in the accident.

Being p*ssed in the dead of night on the Stilorgan dual carriage way seems to be an exception

A side argument was most of these would end up getting settled out of court by insurance so cases would be hard enough to find.

daenerysstormborn3

What about a pedestrian who runs out into the road and knocks someone off a motorbike?

Procrastastudy

It's a paradoxical situation that if you can think about it and write it here it's something the motorist probably should have thought of.

Thats assuming you're the 'reasonable man' of course.

daenerysstormborn3

But how can you think of something and carry out evasive action before the pedestrian has even made a movement? The situation I'm talking about was a biker sitting in traffic and about to take off, pedestrian ran across the road and ran into him, knocked him off his bike and wrecked his bike.

chops018

pixiebean22 wrote: »

But how can you think of something and carry out evasive action before the pedestrian has even made a movement? The situation I'm talking about was a biker sitting in traffic and about to take off, pedestrian ran across the road and ran into him, knocked him off his bike and wrecked his bike.

If there was the requisite mens rea on the part of the person then I would assume that would be assault.

Procrastastudy

Hazard perception isn't reactive it's pro active.

I'd also argue that was the pedestrian hitting the motor cyclist rather than the otherway around. Perhaps spliting hairs...

It would very much depend on the circumstances but assuming this was a traffic light one could be reasonably expected to foresee pedestrians running across the road as they frequently do. It would also depend on whether the biker did the normal thing they do of coming up the side of cars - which they technically shouldn't - and whether he/she was forward of the line etc.

daenerysstormborn3

No assault but said biker is undertaking a civil case against the pedestrian to recoup his losses (through the fall he did some serious damage to his arm and shoulder).

Procrastastudy

Probably more like a civil battery case than negligence case?

Manach

God be with the days when there were men with flags out in front of those new-fangled horseless carriages.

Procrastastudy

Hark for the days when contributory negligence meant your action was barred and you rode your horse to fast into a pole someone left in the road!

daenerysstormborn3

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Hazard perception isn't reactive it's pro active.

I'd also argue that was the pedestrian hitting the motor cyclist rather than the otherway around. Perhaps spliting hairs...

It would very much depend on the circumstances but assuming this was a traffic light one could be reasonably expected to foresee pedestrians running across the road as they frequently do. It would also depend on whether the biker did the normal thing they do of coming up the side of cars - which they technically shouldn't - and whether he/she was forward of the line etc.

No the biker wasn't filtering, which is legal. He was sitting in traffic behind a number of others cars, a good distance back from the lights. Pedestrian didn't run across the road though, the biker was stationery and the pedestrian ran into him.

Procrastastudy

Hmm odd one - not really the same as its a stationary vehicle but let me know the case name when its done so I can add it to the list

Right back to reading about why the Australian Courts don't agree with the Canadian Courts over p*ssed bar patrons...

daenerysstormborn3

Will do, fingers crossed it'll be a happy post

Victor

Wasn't here also a case of a guy who had been drinking after a GAA game on his birthday that was hit on a motorway?

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Sorry I tried digging up the thread buts its lost in the ether...

Think it was Chops and I having the arguemnt about pedestrains never being at fault but we couldn't nail down a case (IIRC) - I was wrong (big suprise!)

McEleney v McCarron (unrep?) Supreme Court 21st December 1992

http://www.griffithcollegecork.ie/files/20090519051807_Chapter%2002_Tort.pdf

http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice/1329-irish-judges-they-crap-just-bad-6.html

On a lit street, in an urban area, with pedestrians present? I find it difficult to agree with the SC.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Right back to reading about why the Australian Courts don't agree with the Canadian Courts over p*ssed bar patrons...

Different takes on R v Brown - in Australia, drinking is the national sport, whereas in Canada it is seen as a burden on the public purse.

There is a criminal offense of recklessly endangering traffic which can be perpetrated by a pedestrian so it's false to say that it can never be a pedestrians fault.

ResearchWill

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Sorry I tried digging up the thread buts its lost in the ether...

Think it was Chops and I having the arguemnt about pedestrains never being at fault but we couldn't nail down a case (IIRC) - I was wrong (big suprise!)

McEleney v McCarron (unrep?) Supreme Court 21st December 1992

Its a reported case at [1993] 2 I.R. 132.

jblack

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

We were discussing a motor vehicle vs pedestrian collision and the fact that it's (almost) never the pedestrians fault for various reasons. It's been done to death in quite a few threads but given I started a new thread I can't really complain if it starts up again.

The general thrust was a motorist must be adept at hazard perception and there is practically no scenario where a motorist could claim it was impossible to perceive the hazard that resulted in the accident.

Being p*ssed in the dead of night on the Stilorgan dual carriage way seems to be an exception

A side argument was most of these would end up getting settled out of court by insurance so cases would be hard enough to find.

Policy considerations are applied here almost completely negativing the effects of evidence of fact.

To put it very simply it is the deep pockets principle and liability will attach to the part that is insured.

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 is an example albeit in a completely different area (negligent valuation and negligent misstatement).

Robbo

Victor wrote: »

Wasn't here also a case of a guy who had been drinking after a GAA game on his birthday that was hit on a motorway?

Shhh, don't say it was a GAA game. I was duly chastised for that over on the "Bizarre/Illegal things on motorways thread". It was after an Association Soccerball game. Judgment here.

coylemj

In two separate incidents over the past 20 years I knocked down a young lad on a bike and a pedestrian. Neither incident involved a claim or prosecution of any kind, partly because in both cases the person knocked down was with a friend who, at the scene said in front of witnesses that it was not my fault.

The cyclist was a relatively minor incident which didn't involve personal injury though he did end up on my bonnet before I braked and sent him flying back onto the road and on top of his bike. He was with a cousin of his who told me that he lived around the corner so I brought him home and supplied my details to his mother who answered the door. She rang me the next day to thank me for bringing him home and said that it was obviously the young lad's fault which it was, he came out of a side lane at 90 degrees to the road I was on and I hadn't a hope of seeing him coming. It was early January and the bike was obviously a present from Santa. I won't say where he lived but suffice it to say that it wasn't a part of town where solicitors' premises have more prominent signs than the local pubs!

The pedestrian was at the other end of the scale with ambulances and Gardai at the scene. I was in the outer lane of a two-lane dual carriageway in rush hour traffic, there was a large van to my left and it was getting dark. Just as the traffic started to move when the lights up above changed to green, these two pedestrians made a rush from the left to cross the dual carriageway in an attempt to catch a bus which was approaching from the opposite direction, I was driving out of town and they were catching a bus going into town. I didn't see either of them coming because the van shielded them from my view, I hit the lead guy and sent him flying.

Several cars and the van driver stopped to offer assistance and all said that it was your man's fault and that I hadn't a hope of seeing him because of the van on my left. A Garda arrived on a motorbike and took everyone's details. The other pedestrian told the Gardai in my presence that it wasn't at all my fault because his friend had run across the road into moving traffic. There was no prosecution or even a civil claim afterwards.

Of course if there was no witnesses it might have been a different story and my insurance might have settled for a few thousand to get rid of the claimant, safe in the knowledge that the money would be recouped from me in increased premiums over the following few years.