Bicycle Austin forum

I am glad this posting stimulated some debate, which was my objective.  I am frankly not sure whether I think strict liability is the best rule to apply in motorist-cyclist collisions, but I AM sure it's an interesting idea that merits discussion.

Strict liability, for practical purposes, makes it easier to establish liability in a civil case because it does not require the jury to determine that a person's conduct was negligent in order to find that they are liable for damages.  The jury still has to make a variety of other findings - namely, that the defendant's conduct actually caused damages, the amount of the damages, etc. - thus, there's no reason to be concerned that in a strict liability situation the cyclist could just fall down, go to court, and win money from a random motorist who wasn't even there.    The "onus of responsibility" in our system is currently on the cyclist - both legally, because the cyclist will have the burden of proof to establish liability, and practically, because we are essentially invisible to motorists much of the time and, if we want to arrive intact at our destination, have to assume we won't be seen or taken into account and cycle accordingly.

Tom, you are correct that a strict liability rule in Texas would make it pretty much irrelevant whether the police issue a citation to the driver.  In the current system, a citation is not a legal requirement for a civil claim, but as a practical matter, the fact that no citation was issued is a strong argument for the defense.  With no citation, a jury will be less likely to find the defendant was negligent; and thus, in turn, an insurance company will be less likely to pay the claim before it is filed in court or presented to a jury.

The reason I thought the use of strict liability in some European countries was intriguing was that the author of the article suggested that a strict liability rule was causing drivers to exercise more caution around cyclists and pedestrians, resulting in an overall reduction in accidents.  Stripping it to its essentials, the population of motorists who hit cyclists can be divided into two groups: those who were negligent, and those who were not.  A strict liability rule would impose potential liability on all these motorists -- with two consequences:  (1) it would be far easier for cyclists to recover damages from the negligent motorists, since liability would not longer be based on arguments about whether the motorist was passing at a safe distance, whether it was reasonable to keep driving even though "the sun was in my eyes," etc. and (2) non-negligent motorists would be faced with potential liability for hitting cyclists.  Note that under strict liability, at least as it would work in Texas and most places in the U.S., the defendant still has the opportunity to prove that the cyclist's own negligence contributed to the damages, reducing whatever money award the cyclist gets either partially or entirely (depending on the percentage assigned to the cyclist's conduct).  Strict liability as a legal rule in our civil justice system has not been employed because people think it's "fair" to impose liability on the non-negligent defendants.  Instead, it's based on a social policy judgment:  the rule of strict liability creates incentives for people to exercise much more care than they otherwise might, in a dangerous situation.  For example, if you handle highly explosive materials, you will be strictly liable for damages they cause, because society wants you to do more than exercise "reasonable care" -- society basically wants you to exercise all possible care to avoid an accident.  The policy question here is whether getting behind the wheel of an enormous hunk of metal, in the presence of pedestrians and cyclists who can be killed by an accident that barely scratches your fender, ought to require you merely to exercise "reasonable care," or to be especially cautious.

As for my "God forbid..." comment: in the current political and legal climate in Texas and many other places in the United States, the overwhelming trend is toward laws and legal standards that make it harder for any plaintiff (regardless of the type of case) to recover damages from a defendant.  My comment was not intended to suggest that "it's obvious that we need these laws and anybody who opposes them is obviously not doing God's work."  Rather, I was making a rather flippant reference to the fact that it's extremely unlikely that anytime in the near future, Texans would be willing to consider a change in our legal rules that would make it easier for cyclists to obtain legal damages from drivers who injure them - no matter how sensible or helpful such a change would be.

treybiss - What has happened with your ticket? 

I think it's important that we get the City to impose only the $20-40 fine and not treat riding on the sidewalk as a traffic offense that goes on your driving record.  I'm a lawyer, bike commuter & triathlete:  On a pro-bono (no fee) basis, I would be willing to help someone challenge treating such a ticket as a traffic offense so we can get some helpful court precedent on the issue.  For info about me - http://www.txtort.com/about.html  (To be clear, my office is in Dallas, but I live & bike in Austin!).