When is it legal to run people over?

Remove all ads!

Returning from a little trip for some food, there was an old man crossing the middle of the street with his chihuahua. I slowed to a crawl, but it gave me the time to think, "Even though I wouldn't do it, would it be legal to run them over since they're jay-walking (AKA committing a crime)?" Of course there are places where it's legal just because they're a pedestrian and they simply don't have the right of way (I believe Mexico is one of those places), but what about others? Also, while I am naturally particularly interested in the US rulings, it would be neat to hear about other places too.

 

I guess it's as legal as shooting someone since they happened to walk over your firing line. Well, not technically, but the idea's about the same.

In Finland at least, you're going to get into very serious problems with if you run over, say, a man dressed in completely dark suit in a pitch-black, misty night in a highway. No amount of "But I didn't see him!" will help.

Personally, though, I find the whole idea of driving over someone since they're jay-walking morbid, to say at least.
This is not to imply you would somehow like it, just my opinion.

 

There are cases of suicide-by-vehicle, but they are rare. The police basically decide whether the driver could have avoided the pedestrian, which is almost always the case -- if they decide the accident could have been avoided then it's vehicular manslaughter. Perhaps dmc could shed more light on the legal issues.

 

People are hard, cars are soft. You have to make a very convincing case that it was impossible for you to avoid running a person over to not be held accountable. What I was taught was that the car is in the wrong unless proven otherwise.

 

In Sweden, you have no rights as a driver, only obligations to follow. So even if someone jaywalks or something like that, you don't have the right to ignore him and carry on as you should have had he not done it, but you have an obligation not to run over people.

 

In US, the pedestrian has the right of way, no matter if they were Jay-Walking, having a cult meeting in the road, or laying mines in the road. If Sadaam was in the road and you ran over him, you'd still go to jail.

Not that I have any evidence besides Driver's Ed of course.

 

Unless your life is in immediate danger from the person you run over, I would think never.

I mean, running someone over because they are jaywalking? Since when A) is that not cruel and unusual and B) do law enforcement agents do that?

 

What if you're being attacked by muggers? If one of them stood in the front of my car with some sort of a weapon, besides a gun, trying to get me to open the door so they could mug me, I'd release the brake, and slowly creep forward. If the idiot is dumb enough to just stand there, I'm going to hit the gas...hard.

I've heard a local news story where a group of teenagers pulled up behind a guy, and then surrounded his car demanding that he open his door... The idiot actually obeyed, and the teens pulled him from his car, beat him half to death; stole his wallet and his car.

If some a**hole tried that on me, they would be pinned under my front tire before I would ever consider opening my door. Dog eat dog...kill or be killed.

In Fel's case, the worst I would do is pass by really close and lean out of the car to give the guy a good slap.

 

In Canada it is pretty much the same as the U.S. I personally think that the pedestrians should carry at least some responsibility for their own well being but apparently I am in the minority around here.

In downtown Toronto the pedestrians will just jaywalk out across the road without even looking - it makes it damned scary to drive there.

Someone in Germany told me that jaywalkers are usually held responsible if they are hit there but he could very well have been trying to scare the tourists.

 

I have a high level of confidence in the common sense of my country's judical system that has proven to me time and time again that they value common sense over the hard lines of the law. I would say that in New Zealand if you hit somebody and the situation was one that would have been very difficult to avoid or even impossible I very much doubt you'd be convicted. I would even say the person you hit could be responsiable for paying for the damages done to your car.

Of course you would have to prove this was the case and that the pedestrian was at fault or at least that nobody was at fault.

 

Hitting someone on purpose with a car is not causing a traffic accident or manslaughter or anything, it's proper murder.

 

But if you make sure you're drunk when doing that and can show that it wasn't premeditated you'll get away with manslaugher. At least in Finland.

I think it's ridiculous. If you go driving when you're drunk and cause somebody's death, the sentence should almost equal with what you get from murder.

 

how do you prove it was on puropse?

a police officer once told me that you are only guilty if you slow down, thus showing that you are aware of the pedestrian. otherwise, he said it is an unfortunate 'accident'

 

I agree with you there. The high school I went to is very close to my house, and pretty much at the crossroads of two major streets. But I see dumbass kids running across them all the time, sometimes as little as ten feet away from the corner. That there isn't at least one accident a year is astounding. And even adults seem to have this sense of "Having the right of way means that cars can't touch me." All it would take is one inattentive driver, and suddenly their kids are orphans.

Pedestrians have the right of way to prevent malicious acts, but that can't do a damn thing against accidents and people really need to wake up and recognize that. On the very rare occasions I jaywalk, I make sure I can see NO cars on the road before I step onto the asphalt. Now I'm not sure if the old guy just didn't see me (on the same low-traffic road that is the only one I jaywalk on), but he really should have been more careful. And though I can only hope having a car pretty much sitting there waiting for him to pass will make him a little more cautious considering the slow speed he's able to walk at, I doubt common sense will be able to make a dent.

 

That's something I recall quite clearly from Driver's Ed. Unless of course it's self-defence, I'm sure you'd be within the bounds of legality there.

 

Its legal if you are Vince Neil of Motley Crue... well close enough anyway.

 

That might actually be true. My buddy was over there once, and when he jaywalked, people started looking at him weirdly.

 

In denmark its never legal, its allways the car drivers fault.

 

In a drunken state one's common sense can diminish quite a bit and they often don't view themselves being all that drunk, so I can't really see how it can even be compared to murderd. Invoulentary manslaughter would be the correct sentence.

In Finland you are basically at fault if you hit anything. In driving school tehy teach that your speed should never exceed such a limit that you are not prepared for the unexpected. Technically if you crash with an elk you are committing a crime and they can come out of the dark forest a lot more unexpectedly than any human. These cases are usually left unprosecuted since since elk crashes are often fatal.