[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by amitoj

And lines like "With great power, comes great responsibility" belong only to Spidey movies.

"Look Ma! I got a car. I have more right to the road than that fella crossing the road with his family. Am gonna show him who's the boss."

I dont know why you are reacting like this.

I am not saying the pedestrians are at fault but making a blanket rule stating that it is always the car owner's fault is not justified, it should be considered on a case to case basis.

Come to Pune & you will know what kind of Park walk people do when the signal is green for vehicles to go.

The bigger is always wrong is a blind rule which refuses to even consider what actually happened & pass the blame on someone who might not be the one who was wrong.

We have lot of people who cross tracks & die. Would they put the same rule for trains too?

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

"He could have averted the accident" Now who decides that. This this a classic case of "andher Nagri Chaupat Raja!"

That truly sums it up! Few years ago, on a not so well at night, on a not so well lit road, an old man alighted from a rickshaw, with the intention to cross the road. But the most amazing thing was the was looking on his left and I was approaching from his right on a bike. It all happened so fast, that it was barely a second before I realized someone was in my path. Yet, I braked and honked, but there was no way the bike could have stopped on the spot, so I ended up mowing him down for no fault of mine. I had right of way, was on the right side of the road, with a pretty sane speed, yet it happened. Who is to blame?

Someone should push someone in front of this judge when she is driving, and then sue her. Then hopefully she will be able to give a slightly more sensible judgment.

Besides this, I see this as a really dangerous judgment. It is well known, that some poeple, esp. slum dwellers deliberately push children in front of vehicles to claim compensation. Now they will have the law on their side too. Wonderful!!

And I'd say, if a person is at fault, why should even insurance be made to pay? Insurance paying in a way means all us premium payers paying extra for somebody's gross carelessness. The more insurance companies pay for such things, the more premium we will be made to pay to cover the risk.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

I dont know why you are reacting like this.

I am not saying the pedestrians are at fault but making a blanket rule stating that it is always the car owner's fault is not justified, it should be considered on a case to case basis.

Come to Pune & you will know what kind of Park walk people do when the signal is green for vehicles to go.

The bigger is always wrong is a blind rule which refuses to even consider what actually happened & pass the blame on someone who might not be the one who was wrong.

We have lot of people who cross tracks & die. Would they put the same rule for trains too?

I know why people are reacting this way though. Its the "Its always the other party's fault" mentality.

The article clearly says "There is material on record that indicates the driver could have averted the accident." Do we know what material the HC judge looked at to come to this conclusion? No, we dont. Yet, we dont want to believe that the car driver is at fault and want to point fingers at the judge's conclusions. We know one side, which the newspaper made public in its own interest, that the pedestrian was not on a pedestrian crossing and was not following a signal.

I am appalled by the comparisons being drawn here. One person gives example of Sam's dad "spending time in jail"!! A totally out of context situation.

And now we have locomotives being used as examples!!!

Come to Bangalore and you will see two lines of vehicles stopped beyond the white line, a drag race starting as soon as they see the pedestrian crossing signal turn green, and many of them not even bothering to stop at red lights.

Bangalore traffic police has installed sirens on some traffic lights which are to assist blind people in crossing the road. What do vehicles do as soon as they hear this sound? You dont even have to guess.

[theMAG]

Another example of why this country will never become a motoring country.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

the bigger/ more expensive the vehicle, the more likely its driver will get the blame classic case of Have-Nots resenting the Haves.

This will continue as long as the huge divide exists between rich and poor in India coupled with the lack of education.

sad, but we may as well accept it and drive defensively to prevent mishaps since this is not likely to change in a hurry.

A wing commander could not exactly be called a "have not", could he? And I don't believe such a person would have jay walked on the road with two little daughters in tow. We can't comment until we know the exact facts of this case.

But what about instances where pedestrians jump over 3 feet high road dividers and suddenly materialize in front of us? I feel it would be unfair to penalise the vehicle driver then. And the other side of the coin is the under age off spring of the super rich mowing down pedestrians with their cars and senior lawyers trying to buy off witnesses.

The unwritten law of our roads is "Bigger the better, and biggest is best!".

[Technocrat]

I know why people are reacting this way though. Its the "Its always the other party's fault" mentality.

Yes that IS the reason.

The article clearly says "There is material on record that indicates the driver could have averted the accident." Do we know what material the HC judge looked at to come to this conclusion? No, we dont. Yet, we dont want to believe that the car driver is at fault and want to point fingers at the judge's conclusions. We know one side, which the newspaper made public in its own interest, that the pedestrian was not on a pedestrian crossing and was not following a signal.

Hmm you have got a point, may be the newspaper highlighted the judgment selectively.

Also it does say that even if pedestrian is negligent in following signal or zebra crossing it will be the car driver's fault because it can almost always be proved that the car driver could have averted it you will have enough clauses, arguments & now judgments in favor.

And now we have locomotives being used as examples!!!

Yes, this is not really applicable here but was only to show how extreme you are going reacting to people who are opposing it.

[sgiitk]

I would say the judge should have said something like'" would have awarded you 15 lacs but since you were also partially responsible lf or your accident by not using the Zebra crossing you get only 5 lacs". This is what the 'beaks' often said and did in the UK in the transition period to near universal seat belt usage.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

Yes that IS the reason.

Nope. There is a subtle difference. Your outcry is over "bigger vehicle is at fault", which is not how i see it. My outcry is over "its always the other party's fault" attitude, with the pedestrian being the other party.

Hmm you have got a point, may be the newspaper highlighted the judgment selectively.

Also it does say that even if pedestrian is negligent in following signal or zebra crossing it will be the car driver's fault because it can almost always be proved that the car driver could have averted it you will have enough clauses, arguments & now judgments in favor.

The article quotes only one line from the Judge:
"In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was material on record to indicate that the driver could have averted the accident"
Whereas the headline says "car owner liable to pay even if pedestrian is at fault". The headline makes it sound like a general judgement has been made.

Yes, this is not really applicable here but was only to show how extreme you are going reacting to people who are opposing it.

In that case, i fail to see your point. And i see it as poor reasoning.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I would say the judge should have said something like'" would have awarded you 15 lacs but since you were also partially responsible lf or your accident by not using the Zebra crossing you get only 5 lacs". This is what the 'beaks' often said and did in the UK in the transition period to near universal seat belt usage.

Good point. The victim's wife had asked for 10 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal awared 5.89 Lakhs, and the judge reduced it to 5.21 Lakhs.

[amitoj]

Since i am already accused of going to the extreme, i DID go to the extreme of going to Bombay HC site, and digging out the order. here is the detail:

One Jitendranath who was a Wing Commander in the Air Force met with an accident on Marine Drive i.e. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road. He and his two daughters aged 15 years and 8 years had on 9.10.1986 visited the aquarium at about 2 pm.
After completion of their visit to the aquarium they were proceeding towards the Malabar Hill for which they were to board a bus from the western side of the Marine Drive. It appears that since there was a red signal and the vehicles had stopped at the signal, Jitendranath and his two daughters attempted to cross the road from east to west, about 236’ to the south of the traffic signal. However, only one of the daughters Nidhi managed to reach the divider when the traffic started. The deceased and his other daughter could not reach the divider in time and the deceased was knocked down by a car bearing No.MAR-7454. The other daughter Nupur was flung aside. The deceased sustained a skull fracture on account of the accident. He was removed to hospital immediately.

It also states:

The Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the claimants and, therefore, awarded the claimants only Rs.5,89,760/- as compensation.

Another EDIT from the case file:

Even if it is accepted that the car could not have been in a high speed there is no doubt that the driver ought to have averted the accident. The deceased was crossing the road more than 200’ away from the traffic signal where the car had halted. Therefore, when the time the car started after the signal turned green, the driver would certainly have seen the deceased trying to cross the road. The driver could then have applied the brakes and swerved the car in order to avert the accident. There is no record to show that the driver had braked in order to avert the accident which occurred about 236’ away from the traffic signal. Thus, in my opinion, although the driver may not have ignored the signal there is certainly reason to believe that the driver could have averted the accident had he taken care and precaution.

I have attached the case file.

Bottomline: GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FIRST BEFORE JUMPING UP AND DOWN.

PS: I totally hate using caps, but its tough to make people listen.

EDIT: Here is the link as well
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/j.../CFA385799.pdf

[gomzi]

Originally Posted by amitoj

i DID go to the extreme of going to Bombay HC site, and digging out the order

Heh, you beat me to posting the link it by a bit.

The facts of the case make it clear that the fault in this instance lies with the driver who could have averted the accident

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by gomzi

Heh, you beat me to posting the link it by a bit.

The facts of the case make it clear that the fault in this instance lies with the driver and the driver could have averted the incident

well, just goes to prove that ZeeNews is hardly a reliable source of information to decide the "future of the country as a motoring country" or lamenting "why is our legal system so blind"!

Mods, change the title to a more appropriate one, perhaps? Maybe something like :
"Knock down a pedestrian and pay for it" ??

[lambuhere1]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Mods, change the title to a more appropriate one, perhaps? Maybe something like :
"Knock down a pedestrian and pay for it" ??

+1 to it. Mods, Can you kindly do the needful. Thanks a ton

[Technocrat]

In that case, i fail to see your point. And i see it as poor reasoning.

LOL

Anyways, Thanks for posting the exact details Amitoj, this makes it more clear.

I have attached the case file.

Bottomline: GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FIRST BEFORE JUMPING UP AND DOWN.

PS: I totally hate using caps, but its tough to make people listen.

Nobody is jumping up & down, we merely reacted to what we had read, which as per the details that you have posted now shows that we only knew the incomplete story.

People will listen if you post as you did in your last post, I dont mind being corrected with facts.

Quoting some more from the report

She points out that the Tribunal has apportioned the liability at 80% for the appellants and 20% for the respondents which again according to Mrs.Agarwal is without any basis.

She submits that after the Tribunal has recorded that the car was not being driven in a rash manner and that it was not speeding; the Tribunal ought not to have therefore held that the driver was negligent.

She submits that the deceased was not crossing Marine Drive at the zebra crossing but instead was attempting to run across the road with his two minor daughters at a distance from the crossing.

She points out that the deceased ought to have not crossed the road with his daughters when the cars had already started after the traffic signal turned green.
The learned advocate then submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver since he had taken all care and precaution to halt at the signal when the signal was red.

She submits that in all probability, the deceased who was a visitor to Mumbai did not have any idea of the time gap for the signal to turn green when he started crossing and therefore, had met with the accident.

[anoopap]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

LOL
Anyways, Thanks for posting the exact details Amitoj, this makes it more clear.

People will listen if you post as you did in your last post, I dont mind being corrected with facts.
Quoting some more from the report

Agreed.

I was also misguided after reading the post title. But looking into details of courts judgement makes sense. Driver was PROVED guilty.

Blame media for selling headlines.

[pranavt]

So the court is saying that if you are driving a car and mow down a pedestrian, the safer thing to do is to simply make a run for it and hope that the law doesn't catch you. Atleast that way, you have a chance of not going through the mess. Good logic, I'm proud of the Indian Judiciary.