Court orders compensation of €44,000 to traffic accident victim

J. Pace

Feb 25th 2010, 22:57

@Wilfrid Buttigieg - although I agree with you, please do remember that there are drivers that are victims of the careless pedestrians. They end up in court and being demanding exaggerating compensation for an accident that was caused purely by the pedestrian.

And our courts often compensates the pedestrian - thus in this case the driver is the victim and not the pedestrian.

Frank Camilleri

Feb 25th 2010, 22:50

I am finding it strange that a collision from the BACK results in a person thrown at the windscreen.......... Logically, a hard collision at the FRONT would result in the person in the car thrown at the windscreen!! A hit from the back should rather jerk your head BACKWARDS onto the head rest!!!.......... Or my physics is totally hopeless?........

J. Pace

Feb 25th 2010, 22:40

@Emeerson Farrugia - "but if you don't look and walk out in front of a passing car, you're partially, if not entirely, to blame".

It is the other way round my friend. The pedestrian will still get heavily compensated even though he is 100% at fault. At civil courts they asses the disability irrespective who was at fault or not. With a good lawyer you get 50% 50% - but still you need to pay. Most often is 25% 75% in favour of the pedestrain.

lgalea

Feb 25th 2010, 20:49

Emerson Farrugia you are wrong. If it was your choice not to wear it then you bear NO responsibility. After all, it was the other car that crashes into her car from the back which means that the following car was not keeping a safe distance from the one in front fir the speed at which it was traveling.

Wilfrid Buttigieg

Feb 25th 2010, 19:48

Malta needs a judiciary which increases the value attributed to life and health.

Some sentences simply do not do justice with those who suffer the consequences of lawless speed kings, alcoholic drivers or road rage psychos.

To add insult to injury, some persons who have suffered an injustice have no voice to speak out, since they are no longer with us.

At this point I cannot but not remember the cyclist Clifford Micallef or the old couple whose life was brutally ended after being thrown 15 meters onto a roundabout this last Christmas, while they were simply maneuvering the Bugibba roundabout.

We are the ones that have to work and speak on their behalf. We are the ones who need to work for a social justice in the name of those who have been most hard hit, in the name of those who have been silenced through lawlessness.

This sentence was surely a signal of progress and a leading example as was the sentence by Judge Joseph Galea Debono who has sentenced a 'road rager' to 18 years imprisonment. Thumbs up.

Emerson Farrugia

Feb 25th 2010, 19:02

@Rose Agius: Just because it's not obligatory doesn't mean she doesn't bear responsibility for not wearing it. It's not obligatory to look both ways before crossing the street either, but if you don't look and walk out in front of a passing car, you're partially, if not entirely, to blame. This is all assuming she wasn't wearing a safety belt, which hasn't been confirmed.

A. Borg

Feb 25th 2010, 17:51

Ghandi dubju jekk kienx obligatorju s-seat belt fis-sena 2000.

Rose Agius

Feb 25th 2010, 17:27

Mr P. Gatt, Ten Years ago I do not think that it ws mandatory to wear a seat belt especially if the car was an old model that did not include seat belts on manufacture.

If that ws the case it ws neither the car's manuffacturer's fault nor the driver's.

Anthony Borg

Feb 25th 2010, 17:12

Almost 10 years passed since the accident! Maybe one should include in his/hers Last Will & Testament, that any compensation finally awarded by the Courts should be passed on to the heirs.

Joe MIzzi

Feb 25th 2010, 16:54

almost 10 years !

dcordina

Feb 25th 2010, 16:53

Accident happened in the year 2000 and after 10 YEARS (who knows how many times they went to court) she was rewarded. Wow kemm ghandna qrati efficenti.

P. Gatt

Feb 25th 2010, 16:44

Does this not mean that the victim was not wearing a seat belt? Wouldn't this negate any responsibility due to negligence on the victim's side?

On the other hand if the victim WAS wearing a seat belt, wouldn't the responsibility fall on the car manufacturer?

If either is the case, our courts are seriously dispensing justice in an absurdly random manner.