|
#3
●
04-24-2026, 03:34 AM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: MASTER GUNNERY SERGEANT Poster Rank:364 I own a penis, only moderately happy with its size though Join Date: Nov 2021 Posts: 3,304 Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Quoted: 1721 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Hong Kong Boy And 2 Big Cars
The guy in the red car didn't want any trouble, he left immediately  Hence the importance of teaching children how to cross a road at the earliest age possible  Thanks for posting  |
|
#6
●
04-24-2026, 06:29 AM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: LANCE CORPORAL Poster Rank:3340 Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 109 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 47 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Hong Kong Boy And 2 Big Cars
This is a sucky case for the driver. Because Hong Kong uses a contributory negligence model for traffic accident liability, the driver would be unlikely to get off scot-free. Weighing against him is the fact that HK traffic laws require him to: (1) slow down even if he has a green light when he has an obstructed view of the entire crossing; (2) exercise a high degree of care regarding jaywalkers on a crossing; (3) as a truck driver, take into account his longer braking distance; and (4) something which is entirely not his fault: underage children are not expected to exercise the same judgement as adults. As a result, he will likely have to pay a portion of the boy's medical costs (maybe 20-40% if this were to go to court). BTW, the contributory negligence model also explains why the red car bolted. Although the red car driver was unlikely to be assigned any fault at all (since he did not obstruct anyone's view or cause the accident), in the spur of the moment they probably didn't think it through and didn't want even a small percentage of blame along with the financial responsibilities that could come with it, especially if the boy suffered serious injuries. Although leaving the scene was morally unhelpful, the red car driver wasn't the cause of the accident, so it wasn't illegal for him to leave. |
He definitely took it well. 
