The legality here is not the question. I'm asking for opinion. Naturally, if a driver is comitting a crime, they would be at fault almost automatically. As far as the court is concerned, anyway.
Cars and jaywalking existed before the law did, so therefore the law came later on to make some sort of fairness out of the whole deal. That's how most laws come about....there becomes a need. We can't forsee every crime or misdeed before it happens or before the thing is even invented.
You're right, but I am not asking for an exclusively legal opinion. Once again, I know the law regarding it, however, I was asking for an opinion regarding said situation.
Legally, the driver would be at fault if they were found to be breaking the law. I believe that we have established this. That doesn't stop people from having opinions regarding the matter and your statements don't stop me from wanting to hear them.
People have opinions regarding many situations in this country, many opinions may contradict or contrast with said laws of this country. I don't think that the almighty godliness of law should prevent said discussion of those opinions. While I agree with the law, in this manner, I am interested in what people have to say on the level of personal opinion.
.Like I said, the LAW came from necessity. So, one would surmise that the law took care of the 'dilemma' you have concocted. It's not that hard to figure out.
Jaywalking is illegal because it poses a danger to motorists and pedestrians, and therefore it had to be made illegal in order to protect BOTH parties involved. Each is responsible (or in case of motorist, less or no responsibility)... How hard is that to grasp?
Jaywalking wasn't illegal until it needed to be so. There's your answer.
I did not concoct any sort of situation. This happens in real life. I am only looking for opinions regarding the topic, how hard is THAT to grasp?
I appreciate your legal advice, but I know that jaywalking is illegal. In fact, I believe I stated it in the poll. The answer that you have given me doesn't in any way answer my original question. On one hand, you tell me that the driver is legally at fault, a short legal history lesson and now you are giving me legal advice regarding jaywalking.
No, no, no....jaywalking is illegal, OK? If you read my post... I said ". Each is responsible (or in case of motorist, less or no responsibility)..."...Meaning, if the driver is being reckless, he is at MORE fault. Not NO fault, but perhaps less fault. SInce BOTH parties are involved in a dangerous (and illegal) act, damages are mitigated.
"The doctrine that places the responsibility of minimizing damages upon the person who has been injured.
The major function of the doctrine is to reduce the damages brought about by the defendant's misconduct. Ordinarily, an individual cannot recover for losses that might have been prevented through reasonable effort by the person, particularly where the conduct causing the loss or injury is not willful, intentional, or perpetuated in bad faith. The rule of avoidable consequences applies to both contract and tort actions, but is not applicable in cases involving willful injury or where the plaintiff could not possibly have circumvented any of the harm for which he or she claims damages.
The efforts that the person who has been injured must take to avoid the consequences of the misconduct are required to be reasonable, based upon the circumstances of the particular case, and subject to the rules of common sense and fair dealing. That which is reasonably required is contingent upon the extent of the potential injury as compared with the cost of rectifying the situation, and the realistic likelihood of success in the protective effort. A plaintiff who neglects to mitigate damages will not be entirely barred from recovering such damages that he or she might have circumvented through reasonable efforts.
Included in the effort that the law requires is the payment of reasonable expenditures. The injured party need not, however, make extraordinary payments to prevent the consequences of the wrongdoer's conduct. The plaintiff's inability to produce funds to meet the situation presented can excuse efforts to reduce the injury."
_______
Legality aside, it's COMMON SENSE. You can't just be careless and expect someone to pay for your damages when it's mostly your own damn fault. Jaywalking is a decision one makes and a risk one takes. Roads are for cars. To walk into cars is stupid and shouldn't be rewarded unless someone is being vengeful and runs you down on purpose. It's not like other dangerous acts of which the effects are unknown (lied about) or hidden, or due to negligence.
Jaywalkers and Reckless Drivers... who deserves more blame?
← View full post
Look up the law, dingus. Contributory negligence, for one thing....and if you're doing an illegal act, you have no recourse generally.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The legality here is not the question. I'm asking for opinion. Naturally, if a driver is comitting a crime, they would be at fault almost automatically. As far as the court is concerned, anyway.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Where do you think the law came from??? Hello?
Cars and jaywalking existed before the law did, so therefore the law came later on to make some sort of fairness out of the whole deal. That's how most laws come about....there becomes a need. We can't forsee every crime or misdeed before it happens or before the thing is even invented.
Another term for this may be COMMON SENSE.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You're right, but I am not asking for an exclusively legal opinion. Once again, I know the law regarding it, however, I was asking for an opinion regarding said situation.
Legally, the driver would be at fault if they were found to be breaking the law. I believe that we have established this. That doesn't stop people from having opinions regarding the matter and your statements don't stop me from wanting to hear them.
People have opinions regarding many situations in this country, many opinions may contradict or contrast with said laws of this country. I don't think that the almighty godliness of law should prevent said discussion of those opinions. While I agree with the law, in this manner, I am interested in what people have to say on the level of personal opinion.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
.Like I said, the LAW came from necessity. So, one would surmise that the law took care of the 'dilemma' you have concocted. It's not that hard to figure out.
Jaywalking is illegal because it poses a danger to motorists and pedestrians, and therefore it had to be made illegal in order to protect BOTH parties involved. Each is responsible (or in case of motorist, less or no responsibility)... How hard is that to grasp?
Jaywalking wasn't illegal until it needed to be so. There's your answer.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I did not concoct any sort of situation. This happens in real life. I am only looking for opinions regarding the topic, how hard is THAT to grasp?
I appreciate your legal advice, but I know that jaywalking is illegal. In fact, I believe I stated it in the poll. The answer that you have given me doesn't in any way answer my original question. On one hand, you tell me that the driver is legally at fault, a short legal history lesson and now you are giving me legal advice regarding jaywalking.
Thanks anyway.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, no, no....jaywalking is illegal, OK? If you read my post... I said ". Each is responsible (or in case of motorist, less or no responsibility)..."...Meaning, if the driver is being reckless, he is at MORE fault. Not NO fault, but perhaps less fault. SInce BOTH parties are involved in a dangerous (and illegal) act, damages are mitigated.
"The doctrine that places the responsibility of minimizing damages upon the person who has been injured.
The major function of the doctrine is to reduce the damages brought about by the defendant's misconduct. Ordinarily, an individual cannot recover for losses that might have been prevented through reasonable effort by the person, particularly where the conduct causing the loss or injury is not willful, intentional, or perpetuated in bad faith. The rule of avoidable consequences applies to both contract and tort actions, but is not applicable in cases involving willful injury or where the plaintiff could not possibly have circumvented any of the harm for which he or she claims damages.
The efforts that the person who has been injured must take to avoid the consequences of the misconduct are required to be reasonable, based upon the circumstances of the particular case, and subject to the rules of common sense and fair dealing. That which is reasonably required is contingent upon the extent of the potential injury as compared with the cost of rectifying the situation, and the realistic likelihood of success in the protective effort. A plaintiff who neglects to mitigate damages will not be entirely barred from recovering such damages that he or she might have circumvented through reasonable efforts.
Included in the effort that the law requires is the payment of reasonable expenditures. The injured party need not, however, make extraordinary payments to prevent the consequences of the wrongdoer's conduct. The plaintiff's inability to produce funds to meet the situation presented can excuse efforts to reduce the injury."
_______
Legality aside, it's COMMON SENSE. You can't just be careless and expect someone to pay for your damages when it's mostly your own damn fault. Jaywalking is a decision one makes and a risk one takes. Roads are for cars. To walk into cars is stupid and shouldn't be rewarded unless someone is being vengeful and runs you down on purpose. It's not like other dangerous acts of which the effects are unknown (lied about) or hidden, or due to negligence.