What if rules for a public transport are only visible on a website and not in Metro / Bus? I live in Barcelona / Spain and recently got fined in a Metro for something I had no idea was illegal. I entered the Metro zone with my girlefriend and we both used the same card (It's legal with that card - T-10). Therefore I had two timestamps left on the card one after another. My girlfriend left the metro one station before me, and as she was walking towards the exit she got stopped by the control. She didn't have the ticket as the ticket was with me, and she got fined. Overall: The rule that you have to exit the area together is nowhere to be found in the Metro area, how ever it can be found on their website. On the metro, you should stay together for the whole journey , from the entry point station until leaving the metro premises. I wouldn't mind paying the ticket if the rule was clearly visible either on a ticket, or in a metro area - which is not a case. I went to their office to complain and when I asked them where is that rule, they replied: "Well... It's logical..." Are there valid defenses to this rule that could be used?
Unfortunately, your chances are nil. There are panels on every metro station where tickets and fares are listed, and on those a summary of the conditions is posted and a pointer to where to get the full conditions: not only the web but also at the customer centers. Nonetheless, the ATM ticket conditions are also published at the DOGC, short for Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya. That's where all laws are published and, although in reality almost no one reads that, whatever gets published there is assumed to be known for all citizens. It's the basis for the "not knowing the law does not allow you to not obey it" principle. By the way, the T-10 usage condition (or any other ticket that allows shared use like T-70/30) state that, if used by more than one person at once, all of them have to make the same exact journey: enter all at the same station, exit all at the same station.
Reading those clauses, you can see that you can park in an emergency. You can park with your vehicle dies and you can't move it. You can park if it is specifically allowed (maybe a sign saying &quot;unrestricted parking allowed here&quot;). Otherwise, you may park on a parking lane (or roadway, or shoulder) but subject to conditions also listed: &quot;unless there is a clear passage for other motor vehicles, and your vehicle can be seen for 60 metres (200 feet) along the roadway in both directions&quot;. Regardless of the name of the piece of road, you are allowed to park there but only if your car is clearly visible, and there is room to get around you.
The principle of constitutional law is that in order to arrest you, the officer would need probable cause. Certain acts are in themselves violations of the order (being closer to another person that 6 feet, illegal sneezing). Walking in public does not per se constitute a violation. In order to briefly stop a person walking on the street (a "Terry stop"), the officer needs a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of the law. That means there has to be a reason, and a gut feeling does not count. An officer would not (legally) be able to stop every person they see walking down the street / driving, and demand an explanation of where they are going. If a person is just aimlessly wandering down the strees with friends (even if they are sufficiently separated), that could suffice to justify a stop, given the limited legal excuses for being outside your home.
In Germany, had the store not called the police (or paramedics), they would have been charged for not doing so under Section 323c. Other jurisdictions will no doubt have similar laws. On arrival, being informed that you ran away - but thankfully paid with a credit card - the police will try to find you. They are not allowed to make a determination that you are just being foolish, but must assume you are a danger to yourself. At some point in the extensive bureaucratic matter, they will probably come to the conclusion that you have acted in a negligent manner. Once that has been done, you will be made liable for all entailed costs to the taxpayer. So your fear of being charged for threatening to commit suicide is the least of your problems. Your claim against the store is probably justified (the listed price is in most jurisdictions binding). Your reaction to that is not. Section 323c Failure to render assistance; obstruction of persons rendering assistance (1) Whoever does not render assistance in the case of an accident or a common danger or emergency although it is necessary and can reasonably be expected under the circumstances, in particular if it is possible without substantial danger to that person and without breaching other important duties, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine. (2) Whoever obstructs a person who is rendering or wishes to render assistance to another person in such a situation incurs the same penalty. Sources: Section 323c - German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB)
The line they'll rely on for GDPR compliance is the first part of that sentence - "If you agree to this during the order process", which suggests that there will be a separate request to opt in to marketing communications at some other time in the process. Check any order documents. There's likely to be a tick box or similar on at least one. If that implies opting out rather than opting in there may be grounds to argue with that under GDPR, but there's nothing in the quoted text that suggests a problem.
You are free to ask them to stop. If they do, great. If they don’t, you legal options depend on if they are legally able to make such noise at that time or not. I am not familiar with UK law but typical laws give wide powers to the owners of infrastructure to construct/repair it. Again, typically, permits may be required but exceptions exist for urgent work. If they have such a permit (or don’t need one) your legal options are nil. If they don’t you can go to court seeking an injunction to stop them until they do.
Can anyone help me understand who's liable for any damages that occur? Yes, a judge. Seriously, in almost all cases in a collision between a turning car and a straight traveling cyclist, the car will be held responsible on the basis that the turn should not be commenced unless and until it can be completed safely. If the car has to stop during the turn, the turn shouldn't have been commenced. The only exception would be if evidence could be provided that the cyclist collided deliberately. Does it matter if it's the car that's damaged or the bicycle that's damaged? No
You can absolutely sue the entity that operates EZpass because it is a private company and you have a monetary dispute with it (unless the agreement you entered into with EZpass to allow it to charge your credit card contains an arbitration clause). But, this would make no sense. Everybody agrees that you owe EZpass money for tolls that you admit that you incurred, and if you don't pay that you are clearly in the wrong. The fact that they weren't able to charge your credit card for some reason (who knows, maybe there's a typo in your records or the phone line had static at a critical moment when they tried to process the charge, it doesn't really matter why), doesn't mean that you don't owe them money for the tolls that you incurred and if the sue you at a time when you still owe money for that toll you will definitely lose. The only dispute is over the late fee. And, the dispute is that you have to pay something that you haven't actually paid. So, in the status quo, in which you haven't paid a late fee which you believe you don't owe, and you are winning for now. Generally speaking, one brings a lawsuit to change the status quo. EZpass is the party that claims you owe money and hasn't been paid, so ordinarily EZpass would sue you and not the other way around, because it wants to change the status quo. Now, realistically, bringing a lawsuit for a single late fee is insane. The filing fee alone is more than the late fee, you couldn't afford to hire a lawyer for twelve minutes without paying more than the cost of the late fee, and the contract with EZpass very likely doesn't allow you to get your attorneys' fees if you prevail. The bigger question, which might make a lawsuit worthwhile, is that if you don't pay your late fee, EZpass could ban you from using toll roads entirely and impose big fines that are authorized by your agreement with you if you do. In short, if you can't work it out with customer service reps and their managers at EZpass over the phone, you would be a complete fool to sue rather than to pay the late fee that you think was wrongly imposed. Not every battle, even when you are in the right, is worth fighting.