|
The introduction of ‘presumed liability’ has been proposed by the Liberal Democrats to be part of an action plan to encourage more cycling and walking – but has sparked the question; what is presumed liability? It is hoped the plan to encourage zero and very low carbon transport will in turn help to reduce our carbon footprint in the UK, and the proposal itself can be viewed in the policy paper entitled ‘Green Growth and Green Jobs - Transition to a Zero Carbon Britain’ which will be discussed at the upcoming Lib-Dems Autumn conference. The paper consists of various pro-cycling measures, but most attention has fallen to the presumed liability suggestion, which has been called ‘motorist bashing’ by the Daily Mail, who also headed the last campaign which led to the government shelving what had generally been considered an uncontentious proposal to introduce the measure and help bring the UK law in-line with most other European countries. The policy document from the Lib Dems claims the party would "Make walking and cycling safer and more appealing. We would bring in a presumption of liability for motorists involved in traffic accidents much like the systems already operated in many other European countries, where the less vulnerable driver is deemed at fault unless proved otherwise." So, again, this begs the question; what is presumed liability? The presumption of liability, often referred to as ‘strict liability’, as it applies to almost all European countries, only affects civil cases (like personal injury litigation, not criminal ones), so has no effect on the common principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Only a few countries (Ireland, Cyprus, Romania, Malta and, of course, the UK) do not have the principle of presumed liability when it comes to road collisions. So, looking at an example case of say, a claim involving a driver and a cyclist or pedestrian, the principle of presumed liability will put what’s known as the burden of proof on the driver’s insurance company, instead of the more vulnerable cyclist or pedestrian involved. The suggested move is supported by campaign group RoadPeace, who explained why presumed liability is such a good thing: "Our civil compensation system for personal injury is fault based. Thus in a collision, driver error must be proven. Because the default assumption is that the driver has not contributed to the crash, their insurance company is not automatically liable for compensation. Often what will follow is a lengthy and stressful fight for compensation by the victim." They went on to say that the onus should always fall to the driver’s insurance company, who should have to prove that the collision was caused by the casualty. Insurance companies in the UK already use the principle of presumed liability when dealing with rear end collisions.
Related Articles -
presumed liability, personal injury solicitors,
| 
