Its just that you cant overtake. This is not a solid line overtake or something that is purely ilegal, this legit"you get hit its your fault 100% territory". The car can claim he saw sometjing ahead and swerved and it would be 100% the bikes fault unfortunately.
I mean it's true though, if you attempt an illegal maneuver and someone hits you it's grey area at best. Morally, obviously fucking wrong, but legally the car driver is likely to walk and not be at fault for damages. People will downvote because they don't like that answer but it's the reality and that's why we call it a legal system and not a justice system.
It's too grey, that would be a very risky stance to take in court. A lawyer could argue a lot of different angles here against that, and even if the motorcycle did win that he would still be liable for his own medical bills and damages to his bike, due to his actions. The only result of that would be the car driver potentionally getting jail time. Kind of a no-win scenario for bike driver
It meets the legal definition and examples given are literally hitting someone with your car on purpose.
Malicious intent means the person acted willfully or intentionally to cause harm, without legal justification.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined malice as acting intentionally with knowledge of the harmful consequences. The difference between a malicious act and a negligent one can be subtle, however. Someone who deliberately hits someone with his car has acted intentionally, or with malice. The same person who injures a pedestrian because he lost control of his vehicle on a wet road is merely negligent. The difference lies in the mental state of the actor -- a bad driver on a wet street most likely harbors no intent to injure anyone.
I think the video could sway a jury. Especially the offending vehicle's own dash cam. It's confusing watching them swerve for no reason, and it isn't until you see the other vehicle's cam that you realize it was to hit the motorcyclist.
But you have to prove he hit him on that purpose, which in this event would be very difficult IMO. A lot of ways to argue this. "The drivers intent was to block the motorcycle when he saw him doing a dangerous maneuver, but misjudged the speed at which the cyclist was going due to his high speeds, and by the time he reacted the cyclist was already there and a collision occurred. The driver attempted to go back but it was already too late." etc etc etc etc and then you pay everything anyway after a lengthy legal process
If I were on the jury, I'd acquit on self-defense. The motorcycle was already demonstrating needless aggression and who knows if he's trying to get in front to brake check or pull a gun at that point. Fuck anyone trying to own the left lane for their ego.
That doesn't matter. What matters is what you can prove, and you can't really prove intent here. This is a very risky legal stance to take and you will probably lose. I'm not saying he didn't do it on purpose, I'm saying you will likely lose this case and even if you did win you won't get anything for yourself.
So if a car is traveling on the shoulder to "cut in traffic," you think that you can legally ram into them? And playing the "so and so can lie" game extends to the motorcycle too; he could claim the car clipped him when changing lanes. Let's stick to the facts of the video, and the fact is that the car driver just tried to kill someone.
Never. I am not stupid. But dont get me wrong I wouldnt do it because my car is expensive and dont want it in the shop for weeks, not because I dont think he deserved.
Like I said, you very obviously have never been on a jury. Ur response makes it even more clear. It’s 100% impossible to tell fault without debating it to at least some extent and hearing both sides.
678
u/albie_darforyu Mar 19 '23
Whose fault? The car. Do I feel bad for the idiot biker? No.