Hi-vis jacket liability for pedestrians

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274372/Churchill-insurance-appeals-1m-payout-girl-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html

Summary: girl walking home from stables, along a country road, hit from behind by a car, care required for life.

Insurers want to assign partial blame to the victim for not wearing hi-vis.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42927524-19e1-435c-bcb9-872e11ba857b
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/teenage-schoolgirl-hit-by-motorist-seeks-high-court-damages-1-4074358

Increasingly, it seems to be the view of some people that a car is the most important bit of protective 'gear' that you can use, and if you don't use it, by walking or cycling (or heaven forbid, riding a bike with your child on board), you're dangerously irresponsible.

"It's not my fault she was injured, m'lud - she wasn't even in a car!"

I hope for all our sakes that Churchill lose, and the court of appeal seeks to set a precedent that not using PPE which is neither mandated by law or the Highway Code should not be considered as contributory negligence.

They tried this argument with Mary Bowers, hit in daylight by a lorry driver chatting on a mobile. If this case sets a precedent any child not lit up like a belisha beacon every time they set foot outdoors will be partially liable if a car hits them.

That's absolutely disgusting. Obviously not content with their moral victory in firing drink-driving actors from their ad campaigns, they want to level things out. Dicks

They are just looking for a means to not pay, the motorist would want this to win as it will stop peoples premiums rising. If people accepted liability and accepted that should they do wrong their premiums are going to rise then maybe they would be more careful in future, chances are that wouldn't happen though as everyone is out for themselves it would appear.