[B’ Spokes: Part of the justification of low traffic fines is the injured victim can sue in civil court. I’m concerned about this approach for the following reasons:<\/p>\n
1. Public education. Law suits and their outcome are rarely made public. So what we get is: kill a cyclists and get fined $400 and that’s generally it. (https:\/\/www.thewashcycle.com\/2012\/11\/driver-in-diane-whitman-fatality-gets-400-in-fines.html<\/a> ) Will there be a law suit or will the family just say it will not bring back the dead? <\/p>\n 2. Contributory Negligence. I’ve written about this before numerous times but basically another way to prevent cyclists from winning in court (but please consult a lawyer first as results can vary.): 3. And now I find out about this:] The issue of pre-impact fright is a big deal in wrongful death car accident cases in Maryland.<\/p>\n Why? Well, in non-malpractice cases we have a cap on wrongful death claims and a cap on survival actions. In Maryland – I know some states have it reversed – the survival action is the victim’s loss: his medical bills and pain and suffering damages. It is the only claim in the victim’s own right for the wrong done to them. Under this law, if you shoot a guy in the back of the head without him seeing you coming, there is no survival action. Like the cap itself, this is a dumb law. (Fill in here your own rant about how misguided the cap is. I’ve done it here many times before, but the subject is inexhaustible.)
\nhttps:\/\/www.baltimorespokes.org\/search.php?mode=search&query=Contributory+negligence&submit=Search&type=all&st=0&keyType=phrase&author=all&results=50<\/a><\/p>\n
\n*****************************************************************************************************************************
\nby Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog<\/p>\n
\n…<\/p>\n