What If The Penalty For Certain Personal Safety Laws Was The Forfeiture Of The Right To Claim Damages?

[Ashwyn]

a new class of law could be designed stating that the only penalty that could be imposed for failure to obey was that the individual who chose to ignore the law, could not file suit against anybody else for any harm they incurred as a result of their actions. I.E. if the law calls for you to wear a seat belt, and you are involved in an automobile accident, without a single, and are injured, the other driver may not be identified liable for your injuries. because the complete purpose of these "private security" regulations is to stop the public from being burdened with the price of people's stupidity, would this make it less difficult or tougher?

[Osred]

I recall this being an issue for insurance businesses with folks who got involved in auto accidents even though not wearing their safety belt. Numerous of them felt they nevertheless had grounds for a claim even tho they willfully did not stick to the law.

[ricker]

Lychnobite replied to post #2: 3 saw your details, this must be the only situation where it's been suggested that private insurers be allowed to 'police' their customers but the only fair resolution when they deny a claim is if medical costs are involved where preventative action could have occured. It would be quite a stretch of logic for insurance co.s to claim that by not wearing a safety belt somebody might have caused damage to your vehicle any differentlyl. 45 months ago

[Kilian]

TheLightWorks replied to post #3: 4 I'll have to check my details to see if I was unclear - this does not absolve liability for vehicle damage; just for injuries which the seatbelt would have prevented. also, it would still be a matter of state law, not allowing insurance companies to write their own laws. 45 months ago

[Redmund]

saw your details, this must be the only situation where it's been suggested that private insurers be allowed to 'police' their customers but the only fair resolution when they deny a claim is if medical costs are involved where preventative action could have occured. It would be quite a stretch of logic for insurance co.s to claim that by not wearing a safety belt somebody might have caused damage to your vehicle any differentlyl.

[Maed]

Lychnobite said: 2 I recall this being an issue for insurance companies with people who got involved in auto accidents while not wearing their safety belt. Many of them felt they still had grounds for a claim even tho they willfully did not follow the law. 45 months ago

[Donnachadh]

TheLightWorks said: 6 as Cousin Arnold(the gubernator) said in Red Heat, "shoot them first" 45 months ago

[Witton]

I'll have to check my details to see if I was unclear - this does not absolve liability for vehicle damage; just for injuries which the seatbelt would have prevented. also, it would still be a matter of state law, not allowing insurance companies to write their own laws.

[lanny]

usmc replied to post #4: 5 I could agree with that. if only it could be kept that simple.. I can hear the attorneys now, licking their lips. 45 months ago

[Barklay]

as Cousin Arnold(the gubernator) said in Red Heat, "shoot them first"