On why if you jaywalk and get knocked down by someone 10-15kmph above the speed limit, it's the driver's fault

"A little more moderation would be good. Of course, my life hasn't exactly been one of moderation." - Donald Trump

***

Re: Fine, ban for accident killing former national sprinter

A MOTORIST who caused the death of former national sprinter Tan Eng Yoon in a road traffic accident was fined $9,000 and banned from driving for five years on Tuesday.

Mohammed Iskandar Ariffin, 33, a safety supervisor, admitted to failing to keep a proper lookout while driving and causing his car to hit the 82-year-old pedestrian along Upper Thomson Road on Jan 30 last year.

Mr Tan, president of the Singapore Olympians Association, was heading home after attending the 6.30am mass at the Church of the Holy Spirit when he was knocked down.

He had crossed the first two lanes and was on the extreme right lane when Iskandar's car collided into him.

Iskandar was then travelling at about 70 to 75kmh, above the 60kmh speed limit.

Mr Tan died about 2 1/2 hours later in hospital despite resuscitative efforts.


Someone: it's called "contributory negligence'

Me: So this is like the cases where someone breaks into a house, falls down and hurts himself and sues the owner?

Someone: no, there is another principle that covers that
illegality voids any negligence there may be

besides, in your example, the homeowner does not seem to have been negligent in any way

Me: If the homeowner didn't install railings, so the thief fell off the staircase?

Why doesn't the illegality of jaywalking void this negligence?

Someone: aiya you have to make me dig out my year1 notes
ok it's not a simple simple concept but basically there there are a few principles
1. whether the illegality is of a sufficient degree such as to void negligence. being involved in something ill...egal "in general" does not necessarily void negligence (Ooi Han Sun v Bee Hua Meng involved workers working without work permits and who were injured on the job due to employer's negligence. technically the workers were involved in an illegal act, but employer was still held liable for their injuries)
2. whether the illegality is the "source" of the claim (say, a burglar cannot claim that his stolen goods were, in turn, stolen)

one way to look at it might also be that.. well, the driver was also doing something illegal..

there is a strong line of cases involving traffic accidents where drivers are held (partially) liable despite technically having right of way (Road Traffic Rules do not exempt motorists from having to take care even if they have the right of way)

see section 3(1) of CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND PERSONAL INJURIES ACT

also, it may be partly a public policy thing
considering that motorists have compulsory motor insurance whereas not all pedestrians have personal injury insurance

Me: orh
Though I note that it's only a traffic offence when you're 20kmph above the speed limit