Certainly, with a theory of the case that involves a motorist veering off the roadway and overcorrecting in a manner that resulted in a collision with a bicycle would appear to be enough to support ins uting suit against the driver. That's true whether or not the alleged facts can be indisputably proven or not.
In fact, the theory is enough, if supported by facts, to allow a jury to decide that the driver was negligent and award damages for that negligence.
It seems like a reasonable lawsuit to me. If the driver bears no culpability, he'll be able to disprove the theory and convince a judge or a jury that he is not liable.
Certainly the standards are different in civil rather than criminal court, but I would argue that if this case as is were a crime, rather than something that is classified as an accident, I submit that the driver would be very likely to be found guilty.
I think if it were characterized as criminally-negligent homicide, it would be fairly easy to prove if the State could develop proof that the driver was speeding, left the roadway as a result, and caused the collision with the bicycle as a consequence.
I'll admit that the State's unwillingness to prosecute in that instance makes me wonder a bit about how certain the investigators are of their facts.
But I think that in the context of a civil action, with the plaintiff only needing to prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence and with a strong likelihood that an expert accident reconstructionist could conclude that the driver's speed was a proximate cause of the accident and the plaintiff could get a sustainable verdict. A jury might put some of the responsibility on the riders, too, and reduce the driver's liability by some fraction -- a possibility that would be consistent with WC's concern for the facts in some absolute sense.
I guess I just assume that when police file a report, they don't pull out of their asses, they base the report on eye witness testimony, testimony of the parties involved in the accident (when possible) and evidence available at the scene of the accident.
I could be wrong though.
Problem is, if you read the material out there, that is the journalists words applied to the investigators report, where he doesn't state that as factually happening. It's just an opinion of what happened.
According to investigators...
For someone who bandies about the "willing to admit I'm wrong" card so much, you certainly do cling to your arguments even when they have no basis in reality any longer.
On page 1, you accused posters of assuming something that had happened that had no real basis in evidence.
Next, you moved onto, "Well, it was only one person suggesting something that could have happened, not that it actually did."
Now you're stuck on, "Well, the journalist might be making assumptions based on the investigators' report of what happened."
I mean, my god man, take a step back and look how doggedly you're clinging to this notion.
You are cognitive dissonance in the walking, talking flesh.
only.... wild cobra is right!shut the up cyclists and realise that your own kind are ing up your bicycling world
Except he's not.only.... wild cobra is right!
I am not clinging to the notion the man driving the vehicle wasn't at fault. I'm only saying it is possible he is not at fault.
No, you're right.
What baffles me about the contentiousness in this thread is that even Wild Cobra is admitting the possibility that the driver could be at fault. That possibility -- and the grey area between that possibility and the possibility that the riders were at fault -- is what juries are charged with figuring out.
If there's no lawsuit, nobody (beyond the families and maybe an insurance carrier) cares much about how responsibility is allocated. When there's a lawsuit, the care is escalated and we bring in 12 other people to sort out the story.
Im all for cycling rights on our roads, but riders need to have some accountability for their actions as well. If they decide to ride on a freaking highway where cars are traveling in excess of 60mph s eventually going to happen in those cir stances. Its the Darwin effect at work at that point. No law is going to make everyone a good, or even decent, driver. There will always be car accidents. If your a cyclist you should understand this. If your a cyclist riding along a 60+mph highway, that's your decision, but don't come crying to me when happens.
I wonder if people ride bikes on the autobahn in Germany?
Im guessing the first thought in peoples heads when reading that question was "that would be stupid, cars are going WAY too fast on the Autobahn." If your on a bike, there's really not much of a difference between getting hit at 60mph and 160mph, the end result in either case will still be the same.
How does that saying go? if you play with fire........
I'm guessing the lawsuit gets thrown out.
I'd be curious why you think that. Texas tort law doesn't include assumption of the risk (to my knowledge). The fact that the injured party was involved in a hazardous activity doesn't preclude them from bringing a claim; it allows the jury to put some of the blame on them.
To get the case thrown out, the Defendant driver would have to establish that he didn't owe a duty to the bike riders, but that would mean that no driver on a Texas roadway ever owes a duty to those on bicycles (and likely to pedestrians, either). The Defendant could maintain that he didn't breach the duty, essentially taking Wild Cobra's apparent view of the facts; but to win there, the defendant would have to show, basically, that he didn't leave the roadway and any question about his story will mean that the case goes to trial. The Defendant could maintain that he didn't cause injuries to the decedents, but if there's a question about whether he left the roadway, and no doubt that he struck and killed the bicycle riders, whether his conduct caused the injuries will be for a jury to decide.
I frankly can't imagine any scenario in which the case would be thrown out. I can see that it might settle quickly. I can see that the driver (actually, the driver's insurer) might take it through trial and try to put as much responsibility on the bicycle riders as possible. I can see that the driver might try to develop as many facts as possible to suggest that the riders bore most of the responsibility for the accident. But I can't see dismissal.
Im sorry, when I said "thrown out" I meant along the lines of nothing is going to happen to the driver. It wasn't malicious intent on the drivers part as far as I can tell. No arrests where made. It was an accident on a highway. The driver would have likely lost control regardless if the cyclists where there or not.
Still, I am no lawyer so we will have to see, but that would be my viewpoint as a juror.
Straight negligence requires no malicious intent, in civil law. The fact that he wasn't arrested is irrelevant to whether or not he's liable for damages.
I wonder if you'd say that the driver wouldn't be liable if everything else was the same except that instead of striking a couple on a bicycle, he hit a pedestrian.
Are you saying that drivers who experience lapses that result in catastrophic injuries to others should not be liable for the injuries caused by their lapses?
Usually, most of those bike accidents are caused by bikers
Most of the time, they are respionsible and act as victims
Absolutely not. It's also illegal to ride them the the interstate freeways here. Well, even though it probably is equally deadly under either speed, it's the wind and pressure changes that make it dangerous as a vehicle passes a bycycle. Especially 18 wheelers. That's why I say I never ride on a road with a speed limit around 40 MPH or more. Even strong winds can blow a bicycle in fromt of a vehicle.
What were the wind speeds and gusts that day, in that area?
Me to. unless intent or negligence can be demonstarted, I think any reasonable judge will toss it out.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-10-2009 at 05:56 PM.
n/m
I don't clearly remember the case, but I believed it involved a car killing a child riding a bicycle. The parents of the child sued the driverm but the ruling ended up that the parents had to pay for the damages to the car. The child was at fault.
It could happen that family members suing could end up paying for the guys truck!
FWDT: I don't really understand your position as far as comparative negligence goes, which is what I assume you are saying.
Let's say I decide to go for a walk through a bad part of town late at night and get assaulted, do you think I should be partially responsible for my injuries LEGALLY?
I don't really see how the cyclists deaths are any different. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't walk around a bad part of town late at night nor would I ride my bike anywhere near people traveling at highway speeds, but would doing so make me negligent or partially responsible?
I don't think it does but I certainly respect your opinion if it differs.
Yeah that makes sense, they are at fault for being struck by a driver while on the shoulder of the road.
In either your example or the bicyclists situation, there is nothing to say that you are absolutely responsible in any way for what happens. That is, you're not negligent as a matter of law in those situations. But what Texas law permits is for a jury to consider the possibility that you might have been negligent, as a matter of fact, in some fashion. The jury can say you have no responsibility; it can say that you are entirely responsible; or it can say that you share responsibility in some proportion to the defendant.
Functionally, this serves to reduce the defendants' liability by the percentage of your responsibility. Say, hypothetically, a jury in this case finds that the defendant is 75% responsible for the accident and that the bicyclists were 25% responsible and awards $1,000,000 in damages. All other things being equal, the defendant would bear liability only for $750,000 (75% of $1,000,000) of the damages.
There obviously has to be some evidence to support a finding that you had any responsibility for the incident that caused your injuries. But if there is some evidence, we trust juries to allocate blame among the parties, including the plaintiff(s).
Like I say, in Texas we don't allow an "assumption of the risk" defense, which would be the legal equivalent of the notion of making them responsible as a matter of law for their injuries. But we do allow the defendant to put some of the responsibility on the plaintiffs if there is some proof to support that effort.
So, just out of curiosity, given what little actual facts we know right now, would you take this case in favor of the plantif? and if so, how much of a chance do you think they have a chance to win?
again, no speculation and hearsay, just off of what we know which is essentially:
a. a vehicle lost control on a highway.
b. 2 cyclist got hit in the median.
everything else is hearsay and subject to inturpretation IMHO.
That's a ridiculously slippery slope you're on. Should someone be responsible for their injuries if they walk through just an "ok" neighborhood at dusk and are assaulted? What about a good neighborhood at night? Or a lower income area during the day? What cons utes responsibility of the person walking for being the victim of an unprovoked attack?
Basically you are saying if you live in less than excellent neighborhood, it's your own fault if you get beaten/etc. That's some pretty insane logic.
No I'm actually saying the opposite.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
