Posted on 03/24/2017 6:34:49 AM PDT by simpson96
A Tennessee committee has voted down a bill to protect drivers from lawsuits if they hit protesters who are blocking traffic.
On Wednesday, the House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted against the legislation by Republican Rep. Matthew Hill of Jonesborough.
The bill would grant immunity from civil liability to drivers who are exercising due care and accidentally injure a protester who is blocking traffic.
Rep. G.A. Hardaway, a Memphis Democrat, said the bill would be constitutionally suspect and embolden people to think they can hit protesters. He read tweets about President Donald Trump’s visit to Nashville last week, including one that incorrectly says it’s legal to run over protesters because of the bill.
Hill said he doesn’t endorse those comments, and his bill doesn’t intend to sanction driving into protesters.
(Excerpt) Read more at insurancejournal.com ...
Regardless of who wins elections, it seems that the f*****g left always advances their communist agenda.
So it is a normal car vs pedestrian scenario, at least to some degree. But in these cases, the best defense is two things
1. dashcam.
2. Your defense is, “those videos of reginald denny kept flashing through my mind. His mistake was that he stopped.”
Should then make blocking traffic a felony with ten years and $250,000.00 fine per vehicle. End of story.
How about arresting disturbing the protesters. Worked before.
I guess they wouldn’t like it if I welded scythe blades to my pickup truck wheels and a straight-razor adorned cow-catcher in front, and chopped a few agitators up?
How about a law that says you can drive 5mph or less through a crowd that is intentionally blocking your path on a public road? If they can’t get out of the way, it’s their own damn fault.
Best solution. Along the lines of my solution to flag burning, which is to make assaulting someone burning a flag an infraction (like a parking ticket) with a $5 fine.
Courtesy 1975.
The bill was poorly designed. It was so blunt in character that it was guaranteed to fail, if not in the legislature, or by veto, then in the courts.
They could have achieved the same, or even better results, by being more subtle about it. It would have been three times as long, but it would have a chance to pass, likely would not have been vetoed, and would survive court challenges.
A good start would have been to change the judicial standards (boring sounding), so that the preponderance of innocence would be with the driver, if the pedestrian exhibited aggressive, dangerous, reckless, or spontaneous interference towards a vehicle or its operator, moving at the posted speed or less.
But there are lots of add-ons that would have accomplished the same thing as the original bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.