In Australia it is also an ambiguous situation. A pedestrian who walks into the path of a vehicle is at fault. However a vehicle must give way to a pedestrian who has already begun to cross the road. When someone steps onto the road they become a road user and I believe they should have a duty to pay attention. Any other road user looking at their phone is committing...
The judge has obviously been speaking to the couple who stepped out in front of me when I was cycling and I only just avoided them and they told me I 'should look where you're going'. They were not on mobile phones at the time!
"'Ms Brushett must clearly have equal responsibility if she is crossing the road without looking - and if she is looking at her phone, even more so,' she said."
(she being the judge!)
Many eye witnesses, and those involved in the accident confirm she was looking at her phone. So she is more to blame?
In Australia it is also an ambiguous situation. A pedestrian who walks into the path of a vehicle is at fault. However a vehicle must give way to a pedestrian who has already begun to cross the road.
When someone steps onto the road they become a road user and I believe they should have a duty to pay attention. Any other road user looking at their phone is committing an offence.
She also made a bad decision by turning around at the last moment. The cyclist was probably going behind her by then as she walk into his path for the second time.
To me, it sounds like the cyclist (backed up by multiple witnesses) made every attempt he could to not hit the pedestrian. Where as, it seems the pedestrian was too engrossed in her phone to realise not only she was about to be hit, but to realise which direction she needed to go in to avoid damage.
we dont know the facts
the judge ( will have) found the cyclist negligent
it depends what the cyclist said in court
previously a judge has allowed a claim against house insurance for a bus driver who cdnt work after the house holder walked out in front of him ( and splattered )
Well.. it's just surprising the judge said, if the woman was on her phone, then she is more than 50% to blame. Fact is, she was on her phone. So she is more to blame. This is backed up by multiple whiteness.
So why is she still able to peruse a claim for %50 of the compo she wanted?
// 'Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way. //
..said the judge. Fair enough then, he was at fault. It's a bit like if you hit another car from behind. It's your fault. It doesn't matter that they slammed the brakes on for no reason whatsoever, it's still your fault.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.