For example: Whilst giving Mr X and Mr Y a lift home in your car, Mr X becomes violent towards you. To defend yourself, you slam on the breaks to make Mr X lunge forward. However, by doing so, you're also making Mr Y lunge forward. Is this okay, as you're effectively protecting both yourself and Mr Y from harm, even though it causes some harm to Mr Y?
....discuss.
2007-03-01 13:53:04 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
loving the answers so far! though was thinking more criminal law... like, if it was *necessary* for you to slam on the breaks to stop Mr X doing whatever naughty deed he was about to do. Not thinking personal injury here.
2007-03-01 14:13:16 · update #1
If as you say you did it deliberately to cause Mr to lunge forward then it would depend on the amount of violence he was using against you whether this was justified ie reasonable force.In an assault malice can be transferred to another person ie if you try to punch someone and miss and hit someone else it is not considered an accident but an assault.If you prove the assault upon you was so violent that this was necessary action than it is an accident and not an assault even though in reality I would advise you don't mention doing it deliberately to make your assailant lunge forward
2007-03-01 20:02:36 · answer #1 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that would be legal. In that case, you are in control of the vehicle, therefore, any harm that comes to you while operating it could result in harm to Mr Y in the event of an accident. You've chosen the lesser of two evils. Mr Y could not sue you for injuries due to the exigent circumstance that Mr X has placed you in. He could, however, sue Mr X for his injuries since Mr X was the underlying cause of them.
Now, if you were standing in line at the bank and a robbery occurred, you couldn't grab the fat lady in front of you and use her as a shield so you could escape. If she got shot, you'd be liable. If you just ran her over in a panic, you wouldn't be liable, the bank robber would.
2007-03-01 14:01:23 · answer #2 · answered by normobrian 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My first use of algebra since leaving high school!
Woohoo!
Hypothetically Mr Y had it coming because he wasn't standing up for himself. The wimp!
Theoretically X+Y=MC squared. In other words. They both get even more annoyed and round up on the driver, giving him a good slap for slamming on the brakes so hard; and wrecklessly (you).
2007-03-01 14:04:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
foolish person... why do you think seatbelt laws were introduced...
y could sue for personal injury... whilst X goes to the plastic surgeon for reconstructive surgery and the insurance company buys you a new windscreen.
of course, you as teh driver are in the wrong, driving without due care and attention.. you should have stopped in a safe place to do so, and used your mobile phone...and asked X to remove himself from your property and await the arrival of the boys in blue...
2007-03-01 14:05:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You would be fine againt charges against Mr. X, However, if MR. Y wants to, he could pursue it....Not saying he should, just that he could.
2007-03-01 13:57:04 · answer #5 · answered by zebj25 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if i have a problem with someone i deal with it my self.why didnt you kick him out of the car.i believe in sharp swift justice.its the only way these days.
2007-03-01 23:41:37 · answer #6 · answered by earl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if Mr Y had any sense, he'd buy you a beer afterwards instead of suing you or going after your insurance company.
2007-03-01 14:10:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
go for it,,mr.y will thank you later..
2007-03-01 14:09:00 · answer #8 · answered by Raphael D 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋