What if a law creates a dangerous situation? In Saitama (not sure of city or prefecture) they created a law that if a cyclist rings a bell at a pedestrian then they can get a 10000 yen fine. So if you are a cyclist and you down a pedestrian because they don't know you are there because you are scared of the fine so you don't ring your bell to let them know you are there and some pedestrians (or are children) erratically move so they might move too suddenly close to the path of your bicycle for you to stop in time. Who is liable if compliance with law leads to damage or injury?
Not a full analysis, but a framework for thinking about it: Like the French Civil Code, the Japanese Civil Code only has a single provision on tort liability. Article 709 of the Civil Code states: &quot;A person who intentionally or negligently violates the rights of others shall be liable for the loss caused by the act.&quot; Tort law was gradually developed largely based on case law, including cases on pollution. Statutes outside the Civil Code also regulate specific types of torts, such as the Law on the Compensation of Losses arising from Car Accidents enacted in 1955, the 1973 Law on the Remedies of Harm Caused to Human Health by Pollution, or the 1994 Law on Product Liability. In a 1990 article, Takao Tanase posited that the calculated structuring of governmental and legal processes, not a cultural propensity toward harmonious social relations, accounted for the persistently low litigation rate in Japan. In Japan in 1986, fewer than 1% of automobile accidents involving death or an injury resulted in litigation, compared to 21.5% in the United States. The litigation rate was low, Tanase said, because Japan provides non-litigious methods of assessing fault, advising victims, determining compensation, and ensuring payment. Non-litigious dispute resolution mechanisms, mediation services, consultation centers operated by governments, the bar association, and insurance companies. The Japanese judiciary also works hard at developing clear, detailed rules that guarantee virtually automatic, predictable, moderate compensation for most accident victims. This contrasts with the American tort system, where the legal rules concerning both liability and non-economic damages (&quot;pain and suffering&quot;) are stated in general terms, leaving a great deal to the judgment of constantly rotating lay juries—which in turn makes courtroom outcomes variable and difficult to predict. The result was a system that is vastly more efficient and reliable in delivering compensation than the American tort system. Tanase estimated that legal fees comprised only 2% of the total compensation paid to injured persons. In the United States in the late 1980s, according to two big studies of motor vehicle accident tort claims (not just lawsuits), payments to lawyers equaled 47% of the total personal injury benefits paid by insurers. This expense drives up the cost of insurance to the point that huge numbers of drivers are uninsured or under-insured, which means that victims of their negligent driving will get little or nothing from the tort system. (Source) So, getting to the question: if you are a cyclist and you down a pedestrian because they don't know you are there because you are scared of the fine so you don't ring your bell to let them know you are there and some pedestrians (or are children) erratically move so they might move too suddenly close to the path of your bicycle for you to stop in time. Who is liable if compliance with law leads to damage or injury? In Japan, the person who was hurt would promptly be taken to a local hospital, quite likely by the person who caused the harm or a completely unrelated bystander. But, since Japan has national health insurance and very affordable hospital pricing even to the insurer, the economic impact of the accident, even if the injuries were serious, would be much smaller than in the case of a comparable accident in the United States. No one would sue. But, the bicycle rider would apologize repeatedly, and would promptly and diligently pay some moderate compensation to the person harmed. The amount paid would be a bit more than amount of the exclusively economic part of the harm (excluding health insurance payments that it was forced to make as a result of the accident) that were caused by the accident to the person who was hurt. No one would consider the impact of the government regulation as something relevant to justice between the people who were involved in the accident. But people who saw it happen might start having discussions with people in the vicinity and influential people in local government about whether this law was a good idea. It is possible that the law would be changed as a result of this incident and similar ones. But, it is even more likely that the police would unofficially make it known that in some circumstances they will neglect violations of this law when doing so helps to prevent an accident if the person doing so tries to be polite in the process and apologizes for doing so. The local authorities and people informally in the area, might also, or instead, probably encourage bicyclists to call out vocally in a loud but civil voice: &quot;Excuse me good person, I'm coming behind you&quot;, rather than ringing a bell, which would be even more effective at preventing an accident. It is quite likely that this scenario was the intended effect of the local law.
First of all, there are 3 crimes here: the hit and run committed by you the accessory after the fact crime committed by your friend the "attempt to pervert the course of justice" (different jurisdictions call it different things) committed by you and your friend. Second, the lawyer is your friend's lawyer - they have no client privilege towards you. Third, your lawyer cannot help you break the law - any attempt to get them to do so by say, attempting to pervert the course if justice, is not privileged.
As a practical matter, if you learn that people are gathering around a street racing event, leave. In all likelihood, you should do the same if you learn that people are gathering around a cockfighting event, a duel, a staged fight between people outside of a licensed boxing or fighting event, or any other illegal contest. Rather than worrying about the precise contours of these laws, avoiding this situations is the safest rule for your personal safety from other participants and from authorities.
I am not a lawyer and I have never even been to the UK. You will not go to prison if your neighbor's dog attacks you and it dies as a result of you defending yourself. You might go to prison and/or owe the owner damages if: You are somewhere you do not technically have a right to be. It can be shown you could have retreated from harm but chose instead to stand your ground. The force you used was deemed excessive - it showed intent to harm the dog more than necessary to protect yourself You contributed to the confrontation in a way that a reasonable person would think might cause trouble You might be able to protect yourself from problems by: taking pictures or videos of the dog behaving badly or aggressively note dates and times when you observe the dog behaving badly or aggressively formally contact the dog's owner with your concerns and/or evidence in which you assert your rights to access the areas you walk through and your right to defend yourself in the event that you are attacked by the dog if possible, change your route or schedule to avoid the problem entirely Good luck
This recently came up in a local PA homeowner association. Legally they own the roads in their development, but they have erected stop signs to make it clear who has the right of way and asked the township police to enforce them. A resident challenged the right of the police to enforce traffic laws on private property, but lost his appeal (albeit at the municipal level). The judge explained that the residents and any visitors had a reasonable expectation that the traffic signs would be obeyed, and that therefore violating them was just as dangerous as violating them on public roads, and that the same law and penalties would therefore be applied.
I'm assuming you are talking about something like this You didn't specify where you live, but in many places it is illegal to block the sidewalk with a car. I just looked up my local ordinances and it is there. In fact, it is your driveway, but often the land up to and including the sidewalk is considered part of a public easement. Typically you are required by law to maintain any grass in the easement, but if the sidewalk were to fall into disrepair, the local government would fix it. Information on easements can also be found in your local ordinances, here is an example in my area. Should I fight this ticket? You can try, but I doubt you will win. Is there anything I can do to my driveway to allow me to actually use it? I would suggest asking on Lifehacks. And post a link here to your question if you do, I'd be curious to know what they come up with.
From Rule 170 of the Highway Code: watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way If this was indeed the case, then it suggests that the OP had right of way, and the driver was at fault. In any case, the driver should have indicated before turning.
I'll preface this by saying I live in Australia where the lowest jurisdiction that can make an act a criminal offence is the state; local governments simply do not have that power here, Question 1: If I understand this right you have a law that you do not enforce that carries moderate sanctions and you are asking that a law that you do not enforce with greater sanctions will be a greater deterrent? Well ... no (see here). If you want to stop the behavior you have to enforce the sanctions that you have in a fair and impartial way. I would suggest that you make it very clear that starting in early September the laws will be enforced - that gives people fair warning. Then, each weekend in September you bring in enough police (State Troopers?) to enforce the law. Its not going to take many $250 fines to make people stop. Question 2: No comment. Question 3: No comment. Question 4: Sounds like a good way of getting the city sued for negligence; just because people are breaking the law does not make it legal to hurt them. If you are serious then fencing the entire area may be worthwhile but the area would still need to be policed.