Vorpal wrote:But there are areas of the law where the burden of proof is already on the party with the greatest responsibility.
In a shunt accident, the person whose vehicle hits the rear of another vehicle is normally liable, not only for damage to the vehicle in front, but also for any subsequent shunt accidents that result. The burden of proof is on the first driver whose vehicle hits the one in front. There is an assumption in liability that drivers have the responsibility to avoid hitting the vehicle in front. Unless there an injury, or a multiple vehicle accident, however, prosecution is unlikely.
This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
This is not a matter of law, for there is no law (that i am aware of) that specifies what you say here. The liability derives from the rather obvious fact that someone driving with care will not collide with a stationary object that they are driving towards. The driver who does so collide would be a walk through for a Due Care prosecution should the police ever start bothering themselves with such things again. If a cyclist was to ride into the back of a stationary car, or even perhaps a pedestrian standing in the road admiring the view then they would be an easy prosecution for riding a pedal cycle without due care and attention. All of these things are the very essence of guilt or innocence.
(Here's a case where a cyclist appears to have been granted the same leeway as a motorist. He should have been convicted IMO.http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Cyclist-cleared-path-crash-blame/story-12484470-detail/story.html
As regards liability on Zebra crossings, that is a matter of criminal law, confirmed by case law. If you are convicted of careless driving then a win in a civil case is more or less assured as the burden of proof is less. When the law says motorists will accord precedence to pedestrians on a crossing it is worded as an absolute. So, in a case where a heavy goods vehicle collided with a pedestrian who ran onto a crossing in a manner that meant the lorry driver would have had to change the laws of physics to avoid a collision, the driver was still found guilty of failing to accord precedence. Much sympathy was expressed by the court to the driver as it was acknowledged that it would have been impossible for him to avoid the collision, or to anticipate the actions of the deceased, but he remained convicted.
I'm no expert on employment law, but the fact that employers are obliged to have employers liability insurance doesn't automatically make that insurance pay for employees injuries regardless of fault. The employer has, I believe, to be shown liable for the injury. Example, removing a safety guard from machinery. It is not independent of fault. Same as the requirement for car insurance. Having your car insured is no indication that you are liabile for anything that happens while you are driving it.
Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."