Captain HiredPaymeandtellmetodo of the Starship Enterprise ran over an old lady who jumped off of a highway bridge over pass. The woman died upon impact. Is he guilty of reckless driving, motor manslaughter or a tortious wrong? He is not guilty as she is not a pedestrian with right of way. She is trespassing on the motorway by entering the roadway in a prohibited area. She should not have alighted at the bridge. As such, she committed a highway traffic act offence.
Captain Forcemetodo and Captain HiredPaymeandtellmetodo of the Starship Enterprise ran over an old lady who jumped off of a highway bridge over pass. The woman died upon impact. Is he guilty of reckless driving, motor manslaughter or a tortious wrong? He is not guilty as she is not a pedestrian with right of way. She is trespassing on the motorway by entering the roadway in a prohibited area. She should not have alighted at the bridge. As such, she committed a highway traffic act offence. He is not liable in tort because he does not owe her a duty of care in the usual course of motoring since she is not a lawful pedestrian but someone who is actually guilty of criminal negligence by jumping off of a bridge or trying to cross the road way at non-functioning pedestrian traffic light contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. He has not breached any duty of care as such a pedestrian is not in the reasonable contemplation of the objective and reasonable driver. All pedestrians are owed a duty of care but not pedestrians who are guilty of criminal activity near or on the roadway. It would defeat public interest considerations to allow the driver to be found negligent for what amounts to the careless, reckless and irresponsible actions of a pedestrian.
It helps if the pedestrian survives and sues by admitting her negligence in the claim. But, if your client is attempting to defeat his own defense by writing his lack of faith in his own freedom on motion, there is no success as he proves to have no credibility and is inconsistent. Further to this, he will never know what success he could have had like other Black and non-Black clients if he does not pay the fee. His inconsistency may be irrelevant on the facts since the driver cannot be negligent for hitting a human being or a bug that actually hits his windshield except the bug at least is in the driver's contemplation as he travels at 99.99999 kms/hr. When the lawyer has already won motions in the civil, family and criminal courts, the only way the client has not succeeded with this lawyer or firm is because he did not pay for the service. He should not have expected that any of the work should have been completed for free. That was an unreasonable and negligent expectation. The truth is tort is a creature of equity; not contract and she could certainly make her claim with arguable standing but equity does not answer when she is actually a tortfeaser who was reckless in creating the scenario that led to her own injury by entering the roadway illegally contrary to statute. When coming to the table of equity, you must be a bonafide victim. A collision is not tantamount to a tortious wrong or a claimant's right to damages although there is a duty of care owed presumptively by motorists to lawful pedestrians; not pedestrians who enter the road by alighting at a bridge that hangs above the M4 or who enter a crosswalk that is not capable of lawful use. There was no evidence of speeding by the motorists. This case review was based on a consultation written for a case scenario in Yonkers with a bridge on the Saw Mill River Parkway.
It helps if the pedestrian survives and sues by admitting her negligence in the claim. But, if your client is attempting to defeat his own defense by writing his lack of faith in his own freedom on motion, there is no success as he proves to have no credibility and is inconsistent. Further to this, he will never know what success he could have had like other Black and non-Black clients if he does not pay the fee. His inconsistency may be irrelevant on the facts since the driver cannot be negligent for hitting a human being or a bug that actually hits his windshield except the bug at least is in the driver's contemplation as he travels at 99.99999 kms/hr. When the lawyer has already won motions in the civil, family and criminal courts, the only way the client has not succeeded with this lawyer or firm is because he did not pay for the service. He should not have expected that any of the work should have been completed for free. That was an unreasonable and negligent expectation. The truth is tort is a creature of equity; not contract and she could certainly make her claim with arguable standing but equity does not answer when she is actually a tortfeaser who was reckless in creating the scenario that led to her own injury by entering the roadway illegally contrary to statute. When coming to the table of equity, you must be a bonafide victim. A collision is not tantamount to a tortious wrong or a claimant's right to damages although there is a duty of care owed presumptively by motorists to lawful pedestrians; not pedestrians who enter the road by alighting at a bridge that hangs above the M4 or who enter a crosswalk that is not capable of lawful use. There was no evidence of speeding by the motorists. This case review was based on a consultation written for a case scenario in Yonkers with a bridge on the Saw Mill River Parkway.
Comments
Post a Comment