6 ms·

But that is how it works out. In this situation the pedestrian apparently didnt follow one rule. The first car didnt follow another. And the second did somethin

But that is how it works out. In this situation the pedestrian apparently didnt follow one rule. The first car didnt follow another. And the second did something so odd that, if by a human driver, probably qualifies as negligence. Nobody has clean hands. The legal debate is about who has more or less blame, who has enough to be adjudicated reaponsable for which resulting injuries.

watwut 3y ago
From legal standpoint, situation in which one driver is entirely at fault and another not at all is completely standard. Likewise ethically, morally or responsibility wise. The "everyone at fault" sometimes happen, but it is not clear at all whether it is majority of cases.
- Andrex 3y ago
  "Fault" is probably too loaded a term. "Contributing to the crash / making the accident worse than it could have been" may be more accurate but longer winded.
  - watwut 3y ago
    Fault is not just loaded term, it literally means that you are to blame. But even "almost always everyone is contributing to the crash / making the accident worse than it could have been" is pretty tall claim and would require a lot of evidence. Unless you count "leaving the house in the morning instead of staying home" or something like that as a contribution toward accident.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> From legal standpoint Legal determinations come after our accepted rules are applied to the situation. Those rules ebb and flow dependent on the nature of the inquiry and the legal standard applied. Even seemingly irrelevant factors such as insurance coverage can be pivotal. Where both divers are covered by the same insurer, there is a higher likelihood that both will be found somewhat at fault. An insurer on the hook for both sides isn't going to spend money arguing forcefully for an all-or-nothing determination. But such things are totally irrelevant to anyone seeking to prevent accidents from happening in the first place.
  - watwut 3y ago
    Definitely does not work that way where I live. The "guilt" is determined independently of insurance situation. The insurance companies decides whose insurance will be used to pay which does not influence fault determination at all. > Where both divers are covered by the same insurer, there is a higher likelihood that both will be found somewhat at fault. Not true at all. And in particular, beyond being fined for not having mandatory insurance, you insurance does not influences at all who goes to jail or who will be fined and for what. > The legal debate is about who has more or less blame, who has enough to be adjudicated responsible for which resulting injuries. The legal debate fairly often ends with one driver being ruled as the cause of the accident with no blame spread.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      In most accident cases nobody will go to jail. There was no crime committed, so the only people who care are those who are liable in civil court.
      - watwut 3y ago
        Most accidents are parking lot accidents. The guilty one is only one - the one with moving car. That being said, accidents where someone died or ended up with injuries are large part of what criminal system deals with.

watwut 3y ago

From legal standpoint, situation in which one driver is entirely at fault and another not at all is completely standard. Likewise ethically, morally or responsibility wise. The "everyone at fault" sometimes happen, but it is not clear at all whether it is majority of cases.

Andrex 3y ago
"Fault" is probably too loaded a term. "Contributing to the crash / making the accident worse than it could have been" may be more accurate but longer winded.
- watwut 3y ago
  Fault is not just loaded term, it literally means that you are to blame. But even "almost always everyone is contributing to the crash / making the accident worse than it could have been" is pretty tall claim and would require a lot of evidence. Unless you count "leaving the house in the morning instead of staying home" or something like that as a contribution toward accident.
sandworm101 3y ago
>> From legal standpoint Legal determinations come after our accepted rules are applied to the situation. Those rules ebb and flow dependent on the nature of the inquiry and the legal standard applied. Even seemingly irrelevant factors such as insurance coverage can be pivotal. Where both divers are covered by the same insurer, there is a higher likelihood that both will be found somewhat at fault. An insurer on the hook for both sides isn't going to spend money arguing forcefully for an all-or-nothing determination. But such things are totally irrelevant to anyone seeking to prevent accidents from happening in the first place.
- watwut 3y ago
  Definitely does not work that way where I live. The "guilt" is determined independently of insurance situation. The insurance companies decides whose insurance will be used to pay which does not influence fault determination at all. > Where both divers are covered by the same insurer, there is a higher likelihood that both will be found somewhat at fault. Not true at all. And in particular, beyond being fined for not having mandatory insurance, you insurance does not influences at all who goes to jail or who will be fined and for what. > The legal debate is about who has more or less blame, who has enough to be adjudicated responsible for which resulting injuries. The legal debate fairly often ends with one driver being ruled as the cause of the accident with no blame spread.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    In most accident cases nobody will go to jail. There was no crime committed, so the only people who care are those who are liable in civil court.
    - watwut 3y ago
      Most accidents are parking lot accidents. The guilty one is only one - the one with moving car. That being said, accidents where someone died or ended up with injuries are large part of what criminal system deals with.