4 ms·
The person making the claim needs to provide the proof, it's really not that complicated. I could claim an infinite number of complete bullshit claims the burde
by soheil 5y ago
The person making the claim needs to provide the proof, it's really not that complicated. I could claim an infinite number of complete bullshit claims the burden of proof should not be on anyone but me.
> (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and
That law clearly states twice that "due care" needs to be taken otherwise it's not applicable. So compare and contrast this with the original claim by the parent commenter:
> legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters
I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
- dylan604 5y ago>> legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters >I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link. Sometimes hyperbole just isn't the right thing, but I seriously doubt the original poster honestly believes laws were created that allowed for mowing down of citizens willy nilly. Pedantic people go nuts and throw out the rest of the conversation on a caveat rather than keeping focus on the discussion. Laws were written that allows for a defense after running people over with your car. There's plenty to be left to the interpretation of lawyers to argue and judges to decide.
- esyir 5y agoIt's still bullshit, mind you, and OP is probably deliberately misconstruing the law here. The law isn't "mow over protestors, we'll cover you". It's "If the driver was taking proper procedures and wasn't negligent and the person was blocking traffic, the driver will not be liable". similarly: >(b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct. That is to say, you're not allowed to just mow them over. Sources are nice not because they magically add quality to a post, but because you can check them for yourself.