 金钱- 493
 魅力- 0
 威望- 122
- 积分
- 122
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 97
|
本帖最后由 Junge 于 2015-1-10 14:57 编辑
回复 yericl 的帖子
不太清楚你的“朋友”是一个什么样的case
如果律师说的法律才是法律 ， 那还要法庭干什么， 控辩双方律师肯定是相反意见不然就不用开庭了
如果是行人违章在先，被撞的话， 这个时候行人要索赔 根据谁主张 谁举证的基本原则， 需要行人来举证， 比如警方提供的事故报告证明驾车司机超速， 危险驾驶（比如酒驾）等， 我的论点就是 行人违章在先，司机并无过错（或是他本来有过错，但你找不到证据），在这种情况下， 撞了就是白撞
我的论据请看以下
If the driver is clearly at fault for the accident, the pedestrian will usually be able to recover compensation from the driver and/or the driver's insurance carrier for the harm caused, and the insurance carrier likely won't put up much of a fight -- although the initial settlement offer will likely be in lowball territory, so you may need to make a counter-offer.
If the pedestrian bears all of the blame for the accident, the pedestrian will probably not be able to recover compensation for injuries, and the driver may actually be able to sue the pedestrian for compensation for any harm caused to the car, or for any injuries to the driver.
Here are a few common scenarios under which a pedestrian may be found at least partially at fault for an accident involving a vehicle:
jaywalking, or crossing in the middle of the street, outside of a crosswalk
crossing against the traffic signal (i.e. in the crosswalk but against a red "Do Not Walk" command)
entering a street or highway while intoxicated, and
walking along highways, bridges, or causeways where pedestrian access is prohibited.
|
|
发表于 2014-12-25 00:16
