FileFront Forums - i have a question about whose responsible

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - i have a question about whose responsible (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/313076-i-have-question-about-whose-responsible.html)

yeah that's what we were thinking because it's been about 2 months.

The idea of America sueing doesn't seprize me :). Its not the drivers fault for sure if the child was in

The idea of America sueing doesn't seprize me :). Its not the drivers fault for sure if the child was in a none 'Child freindy' area and disided to be a twat and run into the middle of the road then its his fault and if i was a president or priministe I would have him and his family shot! (Okay maybe a bit too far).

How old was this child, anyway?

Over here, no matter where it happened or how, the driver would be at fault. Always. The idea behind this is that if you drive a motorized vehicle you should be extremely careful, and if you hit a non-motorized vehicle you're basically screwed. Even if it wasn't factually your fault.

I personally have a bit of a divided feeling about this. On one side, sometimes a driver simply cannot evade an accident, no matter how good (s)he is. On the other hand, whilst driving, you should always be extremely careful if there's even the most remote possibility of hitting a pedestrian or whatnot.

Either way, if the kid only has a few scrapes and bruises and a bit of fright in his/her bones, a lawsuit is ridiculous. They should be concentrating on the fact that their child is alright, but seems to be unable to participate in traffic in a normal way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the1chaos (Post 3667501)

I concur. As for our system: I don't think I ever heard of a person getting fined/in jail when they where invovled in an accident with a pedestrian they couldn't have avoided at all (some weirdo crossing the highway at night appearing from behind a bridge support or anything). I'm divided myself: It's good to know that as a pedestrian you won't be screwed if the driver could have been (a bit) careless but it would suck if the driver takes the full blame (and costs) if there would be no way in hell for the driver to avoid the accident and everybody knew the pedestrian is fully to blame.

As for the author: There isn't much information to go on but it doesn't seem as she is to blame. So I doubt you would win such a case. And even then, (atleast overhere) you would probably just end up having to pay any medical costs etc. and not some silly extra money so the family can make a profit on the accident. Correct me if I'm wrong 1choas, you're the "expert" on this. ;) ( which isn't nice though :( ).

Depends on what state or country you reside in. In Colorado for instance, motorists are at fault regardless of pedestrians or cyclists carelessness (especially when it comes to kids). In some cases vehicular manslaughter is temporarily charged against the driver pending an investigation if a death is involved. The theory goes that you as the driver have a responsibility to scan the road ahead and to the sides every 4 to 8 seconds. Situations happen unfortunately; I suggest you let your parents deal with it via a lawyer as opposed to seeking answers from us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feardamaverickhunters (Post 3666873)

ok my friend's wife was driving down the road one day to go to work and this little kid rides his bike out right infront of her and everyone has said (even the cops) that it wasn't her fault and that there was no way she could stop.

now the family of the child is trying to sue them, how exactly does this work? a few answers would be nice whenever you all get the time.

LOL the US and their sue'ing system. :lol: :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Donutz (Post 3667523)

As for the author: There isn't much information to go on but it doesn't seem as she is to blame. So I doubt you would win such a case. And even then, (atleast overhere) you would probably just end up having to pay any medical costs etc. and not some silly extra money so the family can make a profit on the accident. Correct me if I'm wrong 1choas, you're the "expert" on this. ;) ( which isn't nice though :( ).

You're wrong. Financially speaking, I'm making a profit.

You have to take in account a multitude of things.
1) Severity of the accident, and injuries created by the accident.
2) Lost time due to the accident. (Eg. A years worth of income and/or school)
3) Emotional trauma.
4) Destroyed property. (Eg. Bike, clothes.)

This all can rack up to tens of thousands of dollars/euros, and technically they would be making a profit (mostly from emotional trauma, but destroyed property and lost time stack up nicely too).

Either way, you seriously do not want to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit if you lose, and you're not insured properly.

oh i see, why did the parents wait for 2 months if they were just going for medical bills? i saw the kid walking around a week later.