It is obliging of Jean Karl Soler (The Sunday Times of Malta, March15) to prolong the debate about the principle of presumed liability as this is an important issue that needs to be brought to the notice of the public.

Soler once more uses the contentious word “guilty”. This is incorrect. The principle is not about criminal guilt but about civil liability.

Neither is the presumed liability principle intended as a corrective for dangerous driving; it is based on presumption of ‘perfect road users’.

So the question revolves around the potential for damage of a vehicle if it hits a child or pedestrian as it is invariably the vulnerable road user who is injured or killed. The justice of this principle is that it corrects the unfair situation whereby the injured party has to claim damages from the driver, which often means lengthy and costly litigation against the driver’s insurance company.

The principle of presumed liability shifts the onus of proving that the accident was caused by the vulnerable road user on to the driver. If the driver proves beyond doubt that the pedestrian was at fault, the injured road user bears the legal costs.

At the risk of further protestations from Soler, it is fitting to quote Mahatma Ghandi: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Thirty or so European countries seem to agree with this and they adhere to the principle of presumed liability. Malta and the UK, on the other hand, have failed vulnerable road users by not introducing this just principle.