Funny pic/gif thread...

Ched said:
Been saying this for year .. amen.
Also have to wonder about "must wear seatbelt in car - but don't have to wear helmet on bike" mindset. Seems common sense really isn't so common.
Click to expand...

An old bus driver told me that the reason no belts in a bus is that the kids would use those as weapons.

That's what he said.



Jeff Livingston
 
Ched said:
Been saying this for year .. amen.
Also have to wonder about "must wear seatbelt in car - but don't have to wear helmet on bike" mindset. Seems common sense really isn't so common.
Click to expand...
I always wondered what would happen if a motorist who was in a collision with a motorcyclist that suffered head injury presented a defense that claimed it would be reasonable to believe a biker who chose go helmetless was at least partially responsible for the injury?
That was an endurance sentence.

In some states, there is no distinction to levels of liability. (1% bars is what that means, in legalese). If either party bears responsibility, it is unable to make a claim for damages against the other party.
 
Black-Balled said:
I always wondered what would happen if a motorist who was in a collision with a motorcyclist that suffered head injury presented a defense that claimed it would be reasonable to believe a biker who chose go helmetless was at least partially responsible for the injury?
That was an endurance sentence.

In some states, there is no distinction to levels of liability. (1% bars is what that means, in legalese). If either party bears responsibility, it is unable to make a claim for damages against the other party.
Click to expand...


Hope you have that logical thinking out of your system:rolleyes: It aint like you;)
 
Black-Balled said:
I always wondered what would happen if a motorist who was in a collision with a motorcyclist that suffered head injury presented a defense that claimed it would be reasonable to believe a biker who chose go helmetless was at least partially responsible for the injury?
That was an endurance sentence.

In some states, there is no distinction to levels of liability. (1% bars is what that means, in legalese). If either party bears responsibility, it is unable to make a claim for damages against the other party.
Click to expand...

https://personal-injury.lawyers.com...g-a-helmet-during-my-motorcycle-accident.html
 
Black-Balled said:
I always wondered what would happen if a motorist who was in a collision with a motorcyclist that suffered head injury presented a defense that claimed it would be reasonable to believe a biker who chose go helmetless was at least partially responsible for the injury?
That was an endurance sentence.

In some states, there is no distinction to levels of liability. (1% bars is what that means, in legalese). If either party bears responsibility, it is unable to make a claim for damages against the other party.
Click to expand...

This gets pretty complicated state by state. The doctrine is called contributory negligence. States that recognize this generally go about it in two main ways: either your recovery gets pro-rated depending on your % of fault, or you get a full recovery UNLESS you cross a certain threshold of % fault. Some states that follow the first (pro-rated) method also have a complete bar to recovery if you cross a certain threshold of fault % (so a mix of both rules). The analysis also changes if the state requires a helmet. In addition, some states allow an "assumption of risk" defense. There was a case where a young woman was in a dangerous part of town, living in a motel, and was raped by someone who knocked on her door. The jury decided she was 90% at fault, in that she opened the door to a stranger, and it happened that she was in a jurisdiction that completely barred any recovery because of her high % of fault.
 
pic29292.jpg
_________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top