If you were a juror on this hypothetical lawsuit...

[tom3]

It's an automobile accident involving a car and a pedestrian. Here are the facts:

This happened in day time. The car was turning right at an intersection when it struck the pedestrian crossing the street. The car was following the traffic signal which had a green straight arrow, as well as a green right-turn arrow. The pedestrian traffic signal had a DONT WALK signal, which was ignored by the jaywalker. The car was not speeding, and the driver was alert. [Added]There are cars parked on the side, therefore the driver of the car cannot see the pedestrian or anyone standing on the side of the road until half-way into the turn.[/Added] According to the driver, he/she slammed on the breaks as soon as he saw the pedestrian, but it was too late. After the collision, the driver immediately came out of the car and called an ambulance/the police.

The pedestrian was badly injured, and will remain in wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. The pedestrian is now suing the driver, seeking a large sum of money for damages.

If you were a juror on this case, would you find the driver guilty? and if so, guilty of what? Do you think the victim (the pedestrian) should be compensated for the unfortunate incident??


also.. would the gender and/or age of either make any difference? (for instance, 18 yr old guy driving, or 80 yr old man driving.. etc.). What if this had happened at night, when visibility was low. Would it make any difference to your decision? [Added]How about if the pedestrian was under the influence of alchohol?? [/Added]


Interested to hear what you all have to say..

 

[pulpp]

the driver is not guilty.

 

[cjchaps]

They told us in driving school that "pedestrians always have the right of way".

 

[B00ne]

off course the driver is guilty if he had the green light the pedestrian did too ( dunno why the sign said opposite but green is green)
and he is guilty because it was a pedestrian that was hit ( in accidents with pedestrian the driver is almost always guilty) - if he couldnt stop while turning right, he was surely really fast or didnt break. anyway he certainly didnt look over the shoulder as supposed to

 

[DAM]

no walking means no walking. there is only one person at fault, the pedestrian.


edit: but the pedestrian disregarded the law, i can see how the pedestrian has the right away, but lets say the pedestrian is crossing a busy highway not usin the overpass? if he gets hit, is it the drivers cars?


dam(hope to be never in this situation in either end)

 

[frizzlefry]

Gender doesn't make any difference. Age will in the minds of a jury. The alertness of an 80yo man vs 18yo boy is different. The pedestrian is definitely at fault for not being alert to the traffic conditions.

Now my question is, did the guy stop before completing that turn? If he did not, then there might be a case. If he were alert, and if he saw people standing on the side, then he should have stopped first and make eye contact with those people to make sure they aren't crossing. Now if the driver did stop and verify no one was crossing, then no case.

Seems like the driver did not make sure no one was crossing before making that turn. In the US, pedestrians always have right of way. Isn't that in the law books somewhere? So in that case, driver is always at fault, just like a driver is always at fault for making left hand turns, or merging onto main road.

The pedestrian (well can't call them that any more eh?) should be entitled to some sum of money, whatever the limit of liability of the insurance company for the driver. The guy should also be smacked upside the head for doing such a boneheaded thing as to walk during a DONT WALK signal.

So to sum it up. Yes the driver is guilty and yes the bonehead should be compensated in some way. I'm not saying that this is how I would want it to be. If I were on the jury, I would hope I have the courage to vote guy not guilty and find no amount of damages to the bonehead.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

b00ne, the driver was turning right, the pedestrian was jaywalking as his light was red (imagine a + intersection). pedestrian was breaking the law, they should have no recourse. if you rob a bank and get shot, should you be able to sue the bank if they paralyze you? no, but with the way things work the robber could probably win

 

[pulpp]

<< and he is guilty because it was a pedestrian that was hit ( in accidents with pedestrian the driver is almost always guilty) >>



mind sharing with us this enlightening logic? from what he said its clearly the pedesterian fault.

 

[tom3]

B00ne, the traffic light for cars had both the straight and the right turn arrows. You surely have seen one of those.. In those cases the pedestrian's signal would say Dont Walk.



Also.. (sorry about this) I left out another condition. There are cars parked on the side, therefore the driver of the car cannot see the pedestrian or anyone standing on the side of the road until half-way into the turn.

let me add that to the original post

 

[tom3]

frizzlefry, is the driver required to stop before making the turn if he had a green RIGHT-TURN arrow? Technically and legally, a green right-turn arrow means there shouldn't be anyone crossing the street, correct??

 

[351Cleveland]

I would not vote for any damages on the part of the jaywalker.

 

[B00ne]

hmmm didnt read bout that turning arrow....
guess that changes things
but pedestrians are always favored in accidents even if they have done wrong

 

[FettsBabe]

Technically the &quot;walker&quot; always has the right-of-way, but I also believe in personal responsibility. I don't think the driver should be found guilty. However, the drivers insurance company would pay, and I can't stand insurance companies, so let the insurance company pay just leave the driver out of it. He did nothing wrong.

BTW, his insurance should only go up the maximum of 3 points which it would probably go up 3 points anyway because damage to a vehicle over $2??? and some dollars is 3 points. Therefore, the driver doesn't really lose any money. He may have to switch insurance companies, but they are crooked anyway, so one is probably as good as the other.

 

[montanafan]

What I don't get is...if they're both at the corner and the driver is just making his turn, how in the world was he going fast enough to hit someone right there at the corner to put them in a wheelchair for life? I mean it just seems so unlikely that kind of damage could be done unless the driver barely slowed down coming to the turn or really slammed on the gas from a stop to whip around the corner. In either of those cases I'd think they would be at least at some fault.

 

[pulpp]

<< What I don't get is...if they're both at the corner and the driver is just making his turn, how in the world was he going fast enough to hit someone right there at the corner to put them in a wheelchair for life? I mean it just seems so unlikely that kind of damage could be done unless the driver barely slowed down coming to the turn or really slammed on the gas from a stop to whip around the corner. In either of those cases I'd think they would be at least at some fault. >>




you would be suprised how fragile humans are, he didnt need to be driving fast at all to cause serious damage.

 

[Pretender]

he couldn't have done that sort of damage at a low speed like that, especially if he stopped instantly as he claimed. Hence he was driving irresponsibly, maybe not above the speed limit, but taking a turn where he can't see everything clearly at 20 MPH is hazardous. Add that on to 'the pedestrian has the right of way', and I think it's obvious that the driver is at fault.

 

[Double Trouble]

The pedestrian is at fault, and for having the gaul to then try to place the blame on the driver, should have to pay for any damage to the car as well. :|

 

<< The pedestrian was badly injured, and will remain in wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. The pedestrian is now suing the driver, seeking a large sum of money for damages. >>



Large sums of money for what? Him making a mistake and breaking the law?
Ive been given a ticket in toronto for jay walking, so the pedestrian is at fault.


[edit]


<< [Added]How about if the pedestrian was under the influence of alchohol?? >>


Then I would sue him for any possible damage to the car.

 

[tom3]

bump for more thoughts

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The driver had the right of way, the pedestrian failed to yeild the right of way. Clear cut case IMO.

Edit: the following reasons why the pedestrian DID NOT have the right of way:
There was a &quot;DON'T WALK&quot; sign, meaning the pedestrian crossing was in violation of the law. There was a green light for the car.

Age, gender, race, and whether the pedestrian was sober has no effect on the outcome. Everyone must follow the same basic laws.

 

[obiwaynekenobi]

it depends on state law too. In Las Vegas if a jay walker gets hit it's the jay walkers fault. regardless.

 

[crzyc]

i learned in law class that reading a case isn't the same as having it argued by lawyers and HEARING questioning.