English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is there a theory for challenging the language of a civil law in a situation where a) the alleged transgressor is clearly and provably a victim of circumstances 110% outside the realm of his control and b) ruling against the alleged transgressor would clearly violate the intent of the law? --Even if he finds himself "pushed" into the language by an outside force?

This clearly does not serve justice, and there must be an arguable theory somewhere. Thanks.

P.S. I suppose an example would be, you're supposedly at fault no matter what if you rear-end someone, but what if you're stopped in traffic on the freeway, and a truck hits YOU in the rear going 100 miles an hour so that you plow into the car in front of you. Letter of the law, vs. spirit of the law. That's what I'm looking for here. (This is *not* a situation such as I just described - it's much less serious.)

2007-10-12 09:11:02 · 2 answers · asked by Darkwolfe 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

2 answers

This really tough without the facts of your case.

However, the trier of fact must determine that the transgressor committed the tort/negligent act by a preponderance of the evidence presented, without an affirmative defense.

In your example, the affirmative defense of the rear-ender is, yes, you rear ended the vehicle in front of you, but the actual and proximate cause of the rearending was not the rearender, but the truck driver. But/for the reckless driving of the truck driver, the lead vehicle would not have been rear ended.

2007-10-12 09:19:02 · answer #1 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1 0

I don't follow your question. But your example is not valid. In any accident, an investigation is done to determine who is at fault and under what theory of liability.
If a vehicle pushes your car into the car in front of you, the driver who rearended you is responsible for everything.

There are cases where you can be legally liable but did not do anything to cause an accident.

It is illegal to transport explosives in a tunnel. If you haul explosives into a tunnel then get rearended by a truck, the explosion damage is your liability. The collision damage to the rear of your vehicle is the truck driver's responsibility.

2007-10-12 09:22:18 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers