Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

liability

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    Referring to the item where the city of Fontana was found 75% liable for not providing pedestrian facilities, in my opinion this shouldn t mean that the
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Referring to the item where the city of Fontana was found "75% liable" for not
      providing pedestrian facilities, in my opinion this shouldn't mean that the
      motorist can only be held 25% liable.

      If A and B both decide to kill C and C dies in circumstances such that the
      actions of each of A and B caused the death, then I think it would be held that
      they were both guilty of murder. Not each 50% guilty or whatever. The situation
      described in the article is analogous.

      But what about civil liability ? If I were drawing up the law I'd stick both
      parties up for compensation, just compensate the relatives of the victim (or
      whoever) once, and pay the balance into a safety fund. In this particular case
      this would provide a ready means of financing the safety improvements required.

      For similar reasons I believe that there should be a safety levy on any motorist
      who causes a death or serious injury.

      In the UK, incidentally, fining a local authority would lead to suggestions --
      not unfounded -- that this would make it more difficult for it to fulfil its
      obligations. Has this issue been raised in Fontana and Kansas City ?

      On another issue, I'm glad to see members of this list taking up a position I've
      often tried to promote: that traffic makes walking and cycling unpleasant even
      when it isn't dangerous. Maybe we should be Gandhian and do it all the same, but
      we should also demand a more pleasant alternative.

      Simon Norton
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.