Would you support an assumed liability rule in Ireland?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/colossal-drop-in-personal-injury-awards-which-fall-by-42-after-new-guidelines-1.4850301

the word 'guilt' is being thrown around a lot, and to reiterate - this is not something which has any bearing on whether someone is going to be found legally guilty of any offence. this is not presumed liability for driving offences, it's presumed liability for damages. i.e. in a case where a motorist and a cyclist are in a collision, and the cyclist's bike is totalled, the cyclist can automatically claim for the cost of a new bike off the motorist's insurance unless the motorist has proof the cyclist was culpable.

also, there has been much progress made in reducing insurance payouts recently too, it's kinda funny how this news doesn't get the same attention as the headline grabbing 'quarter of a million damages awarded for crotch injury suffered while truck surfing' ones.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952396#Comment_118952396

If only there was some kind of disincentive to stop cyclists from playing chicken with juggernauts and ramming into them for the craic. Perhaps they would need to legislate against it?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952567#Comment_118952567

Just to be clear, I am not in favour or against such legislation until I see it written down with details. Assumed liability as a technical term is a non starter, it would be impossible to legislate for and go against the general accepted principles upon which such laws are based. Strict liability is simply a way to speed up a process in a narrow number of cases, no one is presumed guilty, it isn't used in criminal cases, only civil as far as I am aware and effectively speeds up what we already do. These are cases where it is a motorist vs pedestrian/cyclist, where absolutely no other party can be deemed to be involved, where it has been established whether there was anything either party could have done to avoid the incident and so on. I'm not in favour of it until I see it written down, but based on lets say the Dutch model, it will just clear a few cases through the courts quicker or get people to settle on the steps alot easier. Cases that people describe about insurance fraud etc. most won't fall under this as there are other factors. Personally, I'm not sure it would have any practical affect other than rile up a few hot heads who can't read and speed up the process in civil cases where solicitors might be more inclined to shake hands and be done long before court.

knucklehead6

Absolutely not. We already have crazy cases where people are awarded 1/4 of a million for walking out in front of a car while at a red light for pedestrians.

JimmyVik

But you are blaming some people for somethi9ng they didnt do.

Its guilty until proven innocent which is a sorry road to go down if you ask me.

I am both a cyclist and a motorist and ive seen wreckless dangerous behaviour on both modes.

How about we get the facts in a situation before assuming someone is guilty of something.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952513#Comment_118952513

If it doesn't have a great affect, and I accept your explanation totally, what's the value of it? If it costs a few more people an injustice of any kind, then maybe it makes for bad law?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952538#Comment_118952538

Again, a misunderstanding of the law, it does not make the motorist 100% liable, just in a narrow set of circumstances 50% liable, the narrowness of which means that in most scenarios, they would have been found at least 50% liable anyway. So other than speeding up the legal process, it really would have no great affect.

JimmyVik

Not very fair to make someone 100% liable if automatically if there is a chance they arent.

Make it mandatory for all round cameras on cars and for all cyclists to have a helmet cam. Problem solved. No cam from either side and they are liable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952444#Comment_118952444

So to be clear, this is not in a criminal case, only in a civil case. It has no affect on criminal proceedings as far as I am aware. The 50% is only where (and this is from memory so apologies if there are errors, I read an article on Irish Cycle or similar years ago), depending on if no other parties were involved in any way, where it has been determined on both sides if either party could have avoided it or not. Long story short, it is a bit like a civil case here, in your scenario, where someone manages to pull off the scam outside of witnesses and make it look genuine, it becomes I said/you said situation, and it would end up 50/50 which is presumably what would happen here unless the motorist could have mitigated by being a better driver in which case it sways more against them.

I could be corrected on this, but we already have similar laws here in regards rear ending someone, there is effectively a strict liability on the following vehicle unless there are other factors at play.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952430#Comment_118952430

In my example, the driver would automatically be assumed to be 50% at fault? They would then have to prove their actions played no part in the collision? It seems like an unfair situation considering I (in my example, which of course, would be rare to say the least) am totally at fault.

Something about that seems unfair to me. Making laws that assume when they don't have to, seems unjust to me. I am open to being corrected if I'm misunderstanding something here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952328#Comment_118952328

This is correct

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952396#Comment_118952396

Its strict liability (not assumed), in your example, its 50% (In Denmark), to the driver if no other parties are involved, and then its to court for the rest. The truth is, it is not much different than here anyway, only it makes the trip to court far quicker and easier if it is needed but it has nothing to do with criminal actions, it is for civil court in a very narrow band of circumstances.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952374#Comment_118952374

...but in an incident where it couldn't be proved, such as me cycling into a turning truck with no witnesses around, you'd be OK with that truck driver suffering the consequences of my choice? That's the bit I'm struggling to understand. The law should protect both him and me from the other person's actions. I totally agree that the current system needs improving, but this is the opposite.

Macy0161

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952080#Comment_118952080

I'm not against assumption. I want the presumed liability, because it would force the system to use the actual laws of the State to prove a cyclist or pedestrian contributed. This doesn't happen in motoring offences in this State.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951532#Comment_118951532

someone correct me on this, but isn't presumed liabilty usually implemented just for insurance purposes?

i don't think a motorist could be prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian, under presumed liability; it's to assign damages, and is not a legal judgement.

amacca

I'm not saying they need the rule, I'm saying they would use a rule like it to their advantage....they didn't need 20k payouts for a hard to disprove injury such as whiplash either to try it on but it was quite the incentive etc

It would imo be an unforseen consequence of just automatically asigning liability to one category of humans

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951803#Comment_118951803

It makes perfect sense. What makes a lot less sense to me is assigning liability to a person just because they are driving/a motorist.....blanket nonsense like that makes no sense.

I also think the statement that cyclists have no duty of care to a driver is a bit silly....less perhaps, but no duty of care...I don't think so, their actions can cause harm to a driver too.....if they have to take evasive action etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952061#Comment_118952061

So if you’re against assumption, you think the solution, is to add more assumption?

Is that not like putting out a fire, with more fire?

Macy0161

We already have that high level of assumption in our system though, which favours the motorist. Successful mitigation of blame for things that aren't a legal requirement of VRU (like Hi-viz), and successful mitigation based on not complying with the law such as driving at a speed you can safely stop in the distance you can see (hence "low sun" being successful when a VRU is killed).

Presumed liability would rebalance the judicial and policing system into application of the actual laws of the State.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951803#Comment_118951803

I’ll make it a bit clearer to help.

I don’t support laws that have a high level of assumption, unless no alternative is available. The current system, where nothing is assumed at first, and is investigated, is my preferred choice.

https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/speed-limiters-mandatory-on-new-cars

No push for speed limits on cars

Cabaal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951042#Comment_118951042

Dashcams and speed limiters.

It's insane our max speed limit is 120km/hour but there are cars that can do 200km plus. No push for speed limits on cars but people pushing big time for a very low limits on scooters.

robinph

Would I take this one step further and assign the same duty of care from cyclists to pedestrians? Yes, for the most part.

Nowhere near the same disparity between pedestrians and cyclist though. Would be like making all SUVs responsible for any crashes that they have with hatchbacks.

There is also not the same expectation of pedestrians that to be following any standard set of rules in how they negotiate the shared spaces. A cyclist riding along the motorway and the car driver can expect them not to have been there in the first place. A pedestrian walking the wrong way down a cycle path though and it wouldn't be quite as unexpected, or a pedestrian suddenly changing direction or not looking behind them as they change positions on the shared path.

Junior

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951555#Comment_118951555

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

I wouldn't support any rule or law that assumes something so automatically. Real life has too many variables. Especially when it's people's lives we're dealing with.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951163#Comment_118951163

Everyone should get dashcams then, its a rare event I would cycle or drive without one or the other, those scam artists don't need such a rule to act the maggot.

seamus

As a driver, I would absolutely. We need to realign ourselves with the understanding that vehicles are trespassers in public spaces who are allowed operate there under licence.

A pedestrian or cyclist presents no danger to a driver, and therefore has no duty of care towards them. The operator of a vehicle presents a danger to all other road users and therefore has a duty of care towards them.

Thus logically it makes sense that in any collision between a vehicle and vulnerable road users, the vehicle is fully liable unless they can prove no failure in their duty of care. There are very few "unavoidable" accidents. 99.99% of the time, there is something you could have done to prevent an accident, whether or not you were legally at fault. There is a much higher burden on vehicles to take those steps to avoid accidents.

Would I take this one step further and assign the same duty of care from cyclists to pedestrians? Yes, for the most part.