presumed and strict liability

[rusky]

Her reply:

http://www.stricterliabilityforus.org.uk/. I did say to the reporter it
wasn't about blame! It's called "proportional liability" or "Stricter
liability". Road Peace and CTC are also supporters. The main points are
below. These are quoted from that website.



"Walking and cycling are two healthy, efficient, community-friendly and
environmentally sustainable transport modes and the Government has many good
reasons for wanting to encourage them. Yet pedestrians and cyclists are not
only most likely to come out worst in road collisions, but they also find it
hardest to obtain justice when collisions occur. At present, the UK is one
of just four countries in western Europe where the burden of proof falls
entirely on injured pedestrians and cyclists to show that the driver who hit
them was "negligent" before they can claim compensation (the others are
Ireland, Cyprus and Malta). Moreover, these unprotected road users are also
less likely to have the insurance to provide both for funding and for
lawyers if and when an injury occurs. Worse still, they may well suffer
memory loss in any injury which is particularly serious - so in the cases
where compensation is most sorely needed, the victim is often unable to
persuade a court of the driver's negligence, simply because they cannot
provide adequate evidence of how the collision occurred.



Reversing these injustices would help restore the imbalance of risk on
Britain's roads, by encouraging people to drive with more respect for the
safety of vulnerable road users. Although the UK has one of the world's
best overall road safety records, it is nonetheless one of Europe's poorer
performers when it comes to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and
children.



"Stricter liability" rules would only affect the workings of civil
compensation. They would not "criminalise" drivers - this would only happen
if they were proven guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt in the normal
way. They would however ensure that pedestrians and cyclists, including
children, would be able to claim compensation without having to go through
years of harrowing court processes in the aftermath of life-changing
injuries, possibly only to see their claims refused due to lack of good
evidence.



It is sometimes suggested that "stricter liability" rules would increase the
overall burden of drivers' insurance schemes, but there is no evidence to
support these fears. On the contrary, their aim is simply to promote to
safer driving, by making drivers more aware of their responsibilities to
avoid endangering more vulnerable road users in the first place. This would
lead to fewer deaths and injury on our roads, and hence fewer compensation
payouts. There would also be more people feeling it was safe to walk and
cycle, and who would feel confident about allowing their children to do
likewise, with the health, efficiency, environmental and cost-saving
benefits that would result, both for themselves as individuals and for
society at large."

 

[Alembicbassman]

Firstly, it't not 'beyond a reasonsable doubt' - it's 'so that you are sure'...

Secondly, the reality is that the difference beyween the civil and criminal standards is not as stark as some would suggest. The civil standard is not necessarily 'lower' than the criminal standard - it's not just 51%/49%. After all, in civil proceedgings the more serious the matters alleged - and teh potential outcome for the respondent - the more cogent the evidence must be.

There's no strict legal definition of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Most of the definiions are derived from case law, 'a high degree of certainty' is another definition.

 

[Alembicbassman]

Interesting watching the 'Coppers' documentary where a senior detective in the Notts Constabulary said his officers had to prove the case 100% to get a conviction, that was his understanding of the standard of proof. If a senior detective can't understand it how juries make sense of it I don't know.

With the English legal system favouring a black letter approach over the Continental interpretive approach (i.e what is in the spirit of the law) means we have problems understanding the laws that originate through the EU (straight cucumbers et al.). Presumed and Strict liability are probably dealt with differently in other legal systems than here.

I guess the emphasis is more on getting what best for the injured party rather than a concerted attempt to screw as much money out of the other side as it is here in the UK. Since most insurance cases never reach court even if presumed liability was put on a statutory basis would have little effect in the 'Real World'

 

[spen666]

Interesting watching the 'Coppers' documentary where a senior detective in the Notts Constabulary said his officers had to prove the case 100% to get a conviction, that was his understanding of the standard of proof. If a senior detective can't understand it how juries make sense of it I don't know.

never occurred to you that juries are directed by the judge on the standard of proof needed?

....

I guess the emphasis is more on getting what best for the injured party rather than a concerted attempt to screw as much money out of the other side as it is here in the UK. Since most insurance cases never reach court even if presumed liability was put on a statutory basis would have little effect in the 'Real World'

Some strange thinking here

What is best for the injured party is somehow different from getting as much compensation as possible? Given the only ( in practice) remedy in a PI case is compensation, then how is it a difference?

Secondly, the change to presumed liability would have a massive effect in the real world as insurance companies would be compelled to settle more cases. The insurance companies only settle cases on the basis of their insured's legal liability. With presumed liability, you would find more cases are paid out on as the defendants are unable to rely on the victim not being able to prove the defendant was liable.

 

[MacB]

Secondly, the change to presumed liability would have a massive effect in the real world as insurance companies would be compelled to settle more cases. The insurance companies only settle cases on the basis of their insured's legal liability. With presumed liability, you would find more cases are paid out on as the defendants are unable to rely on the victim not being able to prove the defendant was liable.

What massive effect? I don't personally know any cyclists that would treat it as a licence to play 'chicken' with the traffic. In the real world we're actually not certain what would happen, we can make some educated guesses. A reduction in incidents could be one, a hike in insurance costs could be another, yet another could be improvements in traffic planning.

I wouldn't be dropping my guard coz I'm guaranteed a payout, I'd rather not suffer injury, or damage to my bike.

 

[spen666]

What massive effect? I don't personally know any cyclists that would treat it as a licence to play 'chicken' with the traffic. In the real world we're actually not certain what would happen, we can make some educated guesses. A reduction in incidents could be one, a hike in insurance costs could be another, yet another could be improvements in traffic planning.

I wouldn't be dropping my guard coz I'm guaranteed a payout, I'd rather not suffer injury, or damage to my bike.

Think you've misunderstood my post. I have never suggested anyone would play chicken. I was talking about how it would change insurance company's attitudes to payouts and reduce lengthy litigation

 

[CamPhil]

The supposed effect in countries that have presumed liability is that the road user's perception is altered concerning the risk to them in any incident involving a more vulnerable road user.

Sort of like hanging their wallet on the outside of their nice secure cage - they know that a collision will not cause them any physical harm, but they also know that it stands a very high probability of causing them financial harm.
People are generally risk averse when it comes to their finances.

It is said to lower insurance costs overall, since increased aversion to risk translates to more careful behaviour, fewer collisions, and lower claims.