Educate fools or make world safer?

[Guv]

?One of my pet peeves is what I see as a growing tendency toward no longer expecting people to be responsible for themselves.

It seems that there is constant agitation for legislation to either make products safer or take potentially dangerous products off the market. There is a current campaign in my community to outlaw lawn mowers because of the number of serious accidents due to fools operating them.

If the tricycle (or worse yet, the bicycle) were invented today, it would be declared unsafe and illegal for use by children under the age of 16.

There are also what I consider to be frivolous lawsuits, which do not consider the actions of the so called victims. For example 5-10 years ago a woman spilled extremely hot coffee in her lap and successfully sued Macdonalds. She was awarded about two million in punitive damages (over medical expenses), later reduced by the judge to about half a million. That is the worst case I am aware of, but there are others. Half a million for making the coffee too hot. Nothing considered to be her fault for spilling the coffee. There used to be a concept of contributory negligence. If the victim was partially to blame, she/he was considered responsible for some of the damages, and nothing would be awarded if the victim were considered the primary cause.

Many years ago, a person who sued because he was damaged by smoking would be laughed out of court. Who forced him to smoke? 50 years ago everybody knew it was not healthy. Back then, they just did not realize how unhealthy it was.

When I was young, almost everybody was able to buy fireworks, which were lots of fun. I even made some potent explosives, like nitrocellulose. Now there are laws about such products and activities. Until 1913, there were no laws in the US relating to controlled substances. If you wanted to buy and drink cyanide, it was OK with the government. Nowadays, using relatively harmless marijuana can get you put in jail (BTW: I do not use it or any other illegal substance).

Damn it all, why not try to educate fools and spend money informing people about hazardous products and activities, instead of trying to protect them from or reward them for foolish behavior? In the long run, trying to protect fools from their folly seems like a bad idea. From an evolutionary point of view, it is counter productive.

[crptcblade]

I agree. The people I blame the most are blood-sucking lawyers :mad:.

If I start talking about this, I'll never stop, so I'll leave it at this...

I hate ignorants and lawyers. They're the two biggest wastes of blood in the world.

[denniswrenn]

I have done some pretty stupid things in my life, from pissing on electrical cords and getting shocked, to touching a hot iron(I got shocked about 5 times, only touched the iron once, this was all before I was 3 years old), but I blame it all on myself(or rather my parents for not stopping me sooner), I would never sue proctor silex because the iron was too hot. I think it's just stupid. The lady who sued McD's had no right doing what she did. If she's stupid enough to put a cup of coffee in her lap and spill it all over her umm ****, well, then maybe she deserved it.

Guv: Where did you get the HNO3? Although things were different "back then" I still thought it was a bit hard to come by(The only practical uses for it are manufacture of high explosives and when mixed with HCl it is used for jewelry work, etching I think).

[nishantp]

The problem is that we are straying from morality and ethics. And the situation will continue to worsen until something drastic happens. The lady who sued macdonalds?? That case wasnt won by the evidence, or ethics...it was won by a lawyer. Thats how more and more cases are. Theres a mentally challenged judge, and some abitious laywer trying to make legal history, earn personal prestige, which leads to money. Thats all it takes. So pucker up people. More is on the way.

[aknisely]

For example 5-10 years ago a woman spilled extremely hot coffee in her lap and successfully sued Macdonalds. She was awarded about two million in punitive damages (over medical expenses), later reduced by the judge to about half a million. That is the worst case I am aware of, but there are others. Half a million for making the coffee too hot. Nothing considered to be her fault for spilling the coffee.
There's much more to that case than most people realize. The fact is that McDonald's had repeatedly been told by product safety commissions and standards organizations that the coffee that was served was kept piping hot, in order to save money. This particular case was set up by a safety commission, in hopes of McDonald's reducing the temperature of served coffee. The result was that all McDonald's coffee containers now contain the warning "Caution: Hot."

Who forced him to smoke? 50 years ago everybody knew it was not healthy. Back then, they just did not realize how unhealthy it was.
There is also some merit to these sorts of awards. Fifty years ago, the extent of medical problems associated with tobacco smoke was known, but only to producers of such products. Tobacco companies, therefore, were selling products that they were aware cause serious health conditions, and did not properly inform their customers thereof. The result is negligence, and damages are awarded as such. With the new labels appearing on tobacco products, awards for punitive damages are being lightened by civil courts for complaints brought by younger people.

From an evolutionary point of view, it is counter productive.
Note that controlled substances and other illegal activities and equipment are often used by companies in cases where it would be reasonable to do so. For example, many pharmacutical companies carry substantial quantities of narcotics.

[beachbum]

Hi
I read about a case in america (where else :p ) where a woman was offered immediate payment of $2000 by shopping center mgt becos she slipped on the floor while entering - it was raining outside. The shop had carpets to wipe feet and caution signs but still offered the money on the condition that she didnt sue. hmmm Booking holiday now to that place :p

Anyhow, i totally agree that we are almost indoctrinated to be less and less responsible for our own actions. I remember when studying law as part of a busn course being gob smacked at some of the cases. i guess this is the reason that local councils are scared to offer play equipment for kids.

One local case highlights the stupidity of these claims. A rock fisherman fell off a cliff and was killed in heavy seas. The family sued saying that council did not provide enough signage or protection. Luckily the courts saw reason and didnt impose upon the council to build fences up and down the coast and signs every 10 metres... imagine the visual pollution.

Also, i think that these stupid cases are quite geographical in nature. America is by far the most litigious society and has more lawyers than the rest of the world put together. Japan is surprisingly underrepresented by lawyers and Australia and UK are somewhere in the middle. I guess that our system will continue to get worse becos of the adoption of the no win no pay system from america.

Unfortunately, law is not ethics and laywers are in no way ethicists. Now where is that shop with the slippery floors?
Regards
Stuart

[simonm]

There's much more to that case than most people realize. The fact is that McDonald's had repeatedly been told by product safety commissions and standards organizations that the coffee that was served was kept piping hot, in order to save money. This particular case was set up by a safety commission, in hopes of McDonald's reducing the temperature of served coffee. The result was that all McDonald's coffee containers now contain the warning "Caution: Hot."
Whilst I have absolutely no love for McDonalds, I do think it is completely and utterly ridulous for them to be sued in this case. OK, McDonalds do go out of their way to appeal to the stupid so you could argue that they should therefore take extra precautions to protect their customers (than would otherwise be necessary for a person of average intelligence) but, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't coffee supposed to be piping hot? That's exactly how I like my coffee and I don't know why people expect anything less.
If it was just freshly made then it would be hot so why shouldn't it be kept hot until it's sold?

It makes me wonder if, when Americans go abroard, they feel very insecure. If they come to Europe (or wherever) then they will not be mollycoddled and protected from themselves. They will have no recourse for suing a third party when they have not been protected from their own stupidity. I bet holiday insurance costs a bomb! :rolleyes:

[beachbum]

LOL that reminds me!! There should also be warnings on coffee liquer chocolates. I gave one to an american on a train trip in italy and being such a generous breed he offered to only take half. Before i go utter "nooooooooooooooo" he had split it in half and splattered coffee drops on the whole cabin aaahhh.... warning.... The liquid inside this chocolate is of a fluid nature?

[kedaman]

If you think eduction would solve the problem, then you have to solve the resource problem first. There's not enough to maintain the world population, especially with primary needs, and here you go cry about tertiary needs not being satisfied. That is not all, in soon future we'll be doomed for not choosing our path to solve our problems immediately now, the resources are constantly depleeting and the population is constantly growing, if there's any needs we're going to fail to maintain, then it's educational. Imagine what kind of chaos we have ahead of us. I hope at least someone is able to.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Originally posted by aknisely
Fifty years ago, the extent of medical problems associated with tobacco smoke was known, but only to producers of such products
Well, that might be technically true, but it strikes me as blindingly obvious that smoke inhalation is going to damage your lungs. It's the major cause of death in fires, after all. I absolutely do not believe that smokers were in blissful ignorance of any dangers that might be involved. That would take stupidity on a grand scale.

Similarly, when I have a coffee at home, there's no label on my mug to warn me that it's hot. Nevertheless, I always make sure I don't drop it in my lap. Why? Because I'm not a complete idiot.

The rise of no-win, no-fee litigation over here is really starting to annoy me. You can't turn on the TV without seeing adverts claiming that if you've fallen over in the street you can take the local council for thousands. A particular anti-favourite of mine is about some woman whose kid fell off a climbing frame and hurt himself. The voice-over tells us that she - and the litigation firm - wanted to make sure that this wouldn't happen to another child. So, she sued them and got £10,000. How did this stop other children from falling off climbing frames? It certainly made the council less able to afford to pay to improve safety - if there was anything wrong in it in the first place.

As for what it's doing to my insurance premiums - well, everything's almost doubled because insurance companies now have to pay out so much more. It's getting to the stage now where the only way to afford insurance is by suing someone. Look - there's someone with a less receding hairline than me. I think I'll sue the bastard for emotional distress... :rolleyes:

[HarryW]

My car insurance is £900 for the year; it would have been roughly half that last year. Quite hefty considering that's 3rd party, fire and theft, and I think I'd be lucky to do more than about £100 worth of damage if I did hit another car :rolleyes: A 1 litre VW Polo isn't the most dangerous car in the world (excluding the fact I'm driving it).

[simonm]

Why's that then? Lost your "no claims" bonus did you? :rolleyes:

[HarryW]

I didn't have a no claims bonus to start with - it's my first year of driving.

[FantastichenEin]

Quite hefty considering that's 3rd party, fire and theft, and I think I'd be lucky to do more than about £100 worth of damage if I did hit another car A 1 litre VW Polo isn't the most dangerous car in the world

3rd Party also means pedestrians - I think you could do more than £100 damage if you hit a person.

Considering that young male new drivers have the most accidents £900 is fair - If you kill a person, the costs can easily run into the millions.

When you own a public establishment - you are responsable for the safety of the people inside.
As for the tobbaco company's being sued - good.
You cannot simply argue "It should be obvious that smoking damages health" - So what, You could say that it is obvious that mobile phones were going to damage your brain. We will all go and sue the mobile phone makers next.

[chrismitchell]

Fortunately I have 2 years no claims (coming up to 3) so my insurance for my POS is only £300 fully comp... Which is nice.. also found that it would cost me £500 to insure myself on a 2ltr car..

To get back onto the topic though... no matter how much information / guidance / whatever.. there is always someone stupid enough to do the opposite or to cause an accident with it... I was reading somewhere that there were 500 reported deaths due to packets of Peanuts (not the peanuts inside but the actual packaging)..

There was a story attached to that fact that was something to do with a woman sueing a flight company because she didn't expect there to be peanuts in a packet of peanuts because *drumroll* she was allergic to nuts and thought that they were peanut tasting not actual nuts... That is why now on all packets of nuts on aircraft etc have the warning:

WARNING: CONTAINS NUTS

All I can say is D-i-m-e B-a-r!?!?!?!?

[FantastichenEin]

The nut warning is there for a valid reason,
The reason is basically that peanuts are not actually nuts - they are tubers.
This (For those interested) means that they grow as part of a root. Nuts are the fruit of the plant which grow above ground after the flower has died.

Since they are processed alongside <real> nuts it is more than likely that they will contain traces of nuts.

Since only minute traces of nuts are needed to trigger an allergy - this is why the warning exists.
This is also why the warning only appears on peanuts.

[chrismitchell]

I wasn't discounting its need on the packaging.. Also I didn't know (along with probably most people) that Peanuts aren't nuts in that sense.. so this woman sueing the airline for her own stupidity just makes me think that people like that should be put in the cargo hold to stop them from causing harm to themselves..

The reason this was so ludicrous was that she was told that she was allergic by the doctor and she obviously didn't believe him!

[simonm]

As for the tobbaco company's being sued - good.
You cannot simply argue "It should be obvious that smoking damages health" - So what, You could say that it is obvious that mobile phones were going to damage your brain. We will all go and sue the mobile phone makers next.
They should only be sued if it can subsequantly be shown that they set about to supress evidence that reported the dangerous effects of using mobile phones. The cigarette companies did do this and therefore shouldn't complain about being sued. If it turns out that mobile phones are harmful and the companies deliberately try to prevent this evidence from being made public, they (which wouldn't suprise me) they should be sued.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
You could say that it is obvious that mobile phones were going to damage your brain. We will all go and sue the mobile phone makers next. If that's what you think, stop using the damned thing. No-one is forcing you to use a mobile phone.

Common sense dictates that you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Unfortunately, common sense seldom prevails when it comes to ridiculous, inadequate, money-grabbing little excuses for people who are so pathetically unable to take responsibility for their own actions that they have to foist their failings on somebody - anybody - else in the form of a lawsuit.

[FantastichenEin]

I didn't make my point clear here.

Tobbaco companies should be sued because they manufactured and sold (and still do) somthing that killed/kills people. It means nothing whether the company's knew about the health risks or not.

If a car manufacturer made a car that the wheels kept falling off, and peopled died - they WOULD get sued, and why not.

If you could prove that a mobile phone killed someone you would more than likely be able to sue the mobile phone companies - it doesn't matter whether the Mobile phone company knew that their phones had health risks or not - the fact is their phone killed someone.

[chrismitchell]

I think that sueing (and now in recent years) counter sueing is a waste of time and money.. some money grabbing little bastards out there want to profit from their own bvlatent disregard for safety and common sense.. I think that the next person to try to sue anyone should be hung drawn and quatered... Stupid ******s!

[InvisibleDuncan]

Originally posted by chrismitchell
I think that sueing (and now in recent years) counter sueing is a waste of time and money.. some money grabbing little bastards out there want to profit from their own bvlatent disregard for safety and common sense.. I think that the next person to try to sue anyone should be hung drawn and quatered... Stupid ******s!
Hear, hear.

If you ever run for parliament, you'll get my vote.

[simonm]

FantastichenEin
Tobbaco companies should be sued because they manufactured and sold (and still do) somthing that killed/kills people. It means nothing whether the company's knew about the health risks or not.
What matters is whether they kept that information from the public or not.

If a car manufacturer made a car that the wheels kept falling off, and peopled died - they WOULD get sued, and why not.
If the car company stated that the wheels might fall off when the customer bought the car then they shouldn't be sued.

What really matters here is whether the manufacturers of a particular product know about a danger and keep it from the consumers.

Perhaps there should be two degrees of liability. Firstly if there is a fault in your product that was accidental and secondly if there is a fault in your product that was known about but the information on it was witheld.

[FantastichenEin]

chrismitchell:

It isn't that simple though.
If you don't have people sueing then you have company's doing what they like with less regard for safety and more regard for profit.

Take Deep Vein Thrombosis on Airplanes - What are we suppose to do if noboby sues, all pay for first class flights.

So no, it is not just about money - it is just sometimes difficult to draw the line at what is a valid claim, with current laws sometimes quite obscure.

It is very shallow to say that everyone that sues is a w****r. Although I have never sued anyone, most people who sue do so for a valid reason

[InvisibleDuncan]

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
Take Deep Vein Thrombosis on Airplanes - What are we suppose to do if noboby sues, all pay for first class flights.
Not flying on that airline springs to mind as an alternative. They'd get the message fast enough if people didn't use them.

The idea that people sue to help others amazes me. If you take £20million from them, how does that help them afford to make changes? You never hear of these people donating their court-awarded money to help pay for the changes they apparently so desperately want.

[chrismitchell]

I have to, i'm afraid, agree to dissagree... I feel that people who make claims that are so bogus that it isn't possible that it could happen are money grabbing little ****s! I agree that in some cases people do deserve to sue the companies (especially for things like Deep Vein Thrombosis)... But when people sue for things like stress and their own stupidity it just makes no sense and there is an alterior motive which is money.

In the cases where it is deserved like the Deep Vein Thrombosis then they deserve to get money to pay for treatment or whatever.. but some claims are rediculous.. like the McDonalds claim which was her own fault.

It pains me to see so many selfish money grabbing people... Have we really evolved at all? We have evolved to a point where we can fly a man to the moon and eventually further, but we still can't get our common sense or basic intelligence high enough to look at signs or think "hold on this coffee is served hot so I don't want to get any on me" or "these are Peanuts.. i'm ellergic to nuts... I had better not eat them just in case....".

[FantastichenEin]

Invisible Duncan

The realisation that they could get sued 20 million evey month might just be enough to make them remove a few seats. They are obviously not going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts. After all boycotting an airline will cost them money aswell.

Considering most airlines have too many seats and too little legroom flying another airline is not too practical anyway. I think there are only a handful of airlines that meet the recommendation for legroom.

At the end of the day it is not just DVT on Airplanes, it applies to all manner of Company's where the publics safety is put at risk.
If a company is risking your safety for their own profit I cannot see why you should not sue them.

There is no valid alternative.

[chrismitchell]

Originally posted by FantastichenEin
it applies to all manner of Company's where the publics safety is put at risk.
If a company is risking your safety for their own profit I cannot see why you should not sue them.

There is no valid alternative.

There are valid alternatives that don't involve sueing.. such things include investigations by govenrmental bodies (as much as everyone hates governments etc). I do see where you are coming from I just cant see a valid reason for someones own stupidy making them able to sue for millions of pounds / dollars etc.

[simonm]

FantastichenEin
If a company is risking your safety for their own profit I cannot see why you should not sue them.
Now you are implying that companies should only be sued if they deliberately put people at risk. I bring this to your attention only because before you said this:
It means nothing whether the company's knew about the health risks or not.
If a company did not know about the health risks then should they still be sued for negligence?

There must be some way we can meet in the middle here. OK, there are definitely cases where companies should be sued but there needs to be a balance (based on common sense). If we just assume that society should be protected from themselves in everything, we shall be so wrapped up in cotten wool that the rest of us (who have some level of common sense) will be prevented from doing anything!

[chrismitchell]

Exactly! :)

[InvisibleDuncan]

FantastichenEin - are you saying, then, that you'll continue to take the risk of DVT until someone successfully sues the airline? If that's the case, then surely it is on your own head. You are now aware of the risks but are deliberately continuing to expose yourself to it. Surely not flying would be a far safer alternative? After all, if no-one buys their tickets because the seats are dangerously cramped, they will change them.

Waiting for a lawsuit could take years - and in the meantime the airline will be unwilling to make changes because that would count as an admission that they have been putting people at risk, and they would lose a major legal defence. Suing is therefore completely counter-productive.

[InvisibleDuncan]

Oh, and BTW - I personally don't think that suing over DVT is particularly frivolous, and it wasn't this kind of issue that I was arguing against. There is a world of difference between this and suing someone because the bag of nuts they gave you had nuts in.

[FantastichenEin]

I can see that the McDonalds claim is stupid.

In the eyes of the law however what is the difference between somebody suing for lung damage caused by the lack of warning on the packet, to somebody getting burnt by a cup of coffee because their was no warning on the cup.
In the eyes of the law you cannot really take into account how dumb a person is.

Yeah, I agree that this is pretty stupid, most people are NOT going to sue for somthing like this - it just means that when they do companys must protect themselves against it happening again.

My only argument is against the statement "People shouldn't sue". Suing is the only practical way that individuals can attack large companies and I believe this to be a good thing, as long as it is for a valid reason.

[HarryW]

Considering that young male new drivers have the most accidents £900 is fair - If you kill a person, the costs can easily run into the millions. Right, and if I'm driving this year I'm twice as likely to kill someone as if I was driving last year? That's where the price of the insurance is coming from is it? I don't think so.

Sorry to take this off-topic. Not that it was on-topic anyway :rolleyes:

[FantastichenEin]

I think insurance prices are a rip-off.
I pay more than 900 for a 1.1 106, £1100 to be exact. I didn't pay much more the car.
I am also in my first year of driving.

I think it is unfair that the price me and you pay is based on other idiots who drive like crazy - I consider myself a careful driver.

When I travel in friends cars who have just passed their tests - I am often scared stiff by the speed and risks they take,
Just the other night i was in a car with a group of friends when the driver overtook on a wide(ish) road when a car was coming the other way, there was probally an Inch either side travelling at 90mph +.

I also knew a guy who was killed while drunk driving, going to get a kebab at 3am.

It's things like that that knock the prices up.

So the answer to you question is yes. Based on statisics and claims by young drivers last year,in the insurance company's eyes you are twice as likely to have an accident this year.
Plus the fact that insurance companies are rip-off merchants anyway.

[simonm]

So the answer to you question is yes. Based on statisics and claims by young drivers last year,in the insurance company's eyes you are twice as likely to have an accident this year.
Plus the fact that insurance companies are rip-off merchants anyway.
Insurance companies are the only types of business legally allowed to discriminate against people based on statistical analysis.

All high car insurance actually achieves is to force more and more young drivers to go without insurance (I know quite a few) which means that if you encounter such a person in an accident, you're screwed.

[chrismitchell]

I know a few people without insurance too and it disturbs me that people don't do it...

[simonm]

And I suppose you would recommend "Churchill Insurance"? :rolleyes:

[chrismitchell]

OOOOHHHHHHHH YES! :D

[InvisibleDuncan]

Far be it from me to defend insurance companies, but...

It's very rare for a company to make an underwriting profit from motor insurance. They instead make their profits from investment income. As things stand, motor insurers receive less in premiums than they pay out on claims and expenses (salaries, buildings etc).

The reason for the current massive prices is partly because our friendly government is making hospitals charge insurance companies for treatment provided to people involved in road traffic accidents, and partly because these days anyone involved in an accident is encouraged to pretend they have a difficult to disprove back injury and sue the other driver. The insurance company then has to pay up. So, instead of paying, say, £10k for repairs to two cars, they also get hit for hospital costs, court awards, and repairs to the road. This frequently doubles what they have to pay on a single claim. Hence, of course, my annoyance at money-grabbing little buggers whose first instinct is to sue.

As for discriminating on a statistical basis, well, how else would you recommend they do it? They give no-claims discounts if you don't wipe anyone else off the road each year, so they do reward you for being less of a maniac than your cronies. The fact is, because you have less experience than oldsters, you are on average more of a risk - whether you think you're being reckless or not.

[HarryW]

Based on statisics and claims by young drivers last year,in the insurance company's eyes you are twice as likely to have an accident this year.Or maybe it's just that people are sueing other people (with insurance companies paying out) for all kinds of motoring-related and non-motoring-related trivialities, and to make sure they maintain a healthy profit margin they're lumping us with prices double that of last year. Hmm.

how else would you recommend they do it?What, am I not entitled to complain without suggesting an alternative?

[InvisibleDuncan]

Or maybe it's just that people are sueing other people (with insurance companies paying out) for all kinds of motoring-related and non-motoring-related trivialities, and to make sure they maintain a healthy profit margin they're lumping us with prices double that of last year.
Or to stay afloat. Don't forget that a big motor insurance company - Drake - went under just last year.
What, am I not entitled to complain without suggesting an alternative?Fair point. I'm not going to stop complaining about the weather, and I can't suggest an alternative to that either. ;)

[simonm]

As for discriminating on a statistical basis, well, how else would you recommend they do it? They give no-claims discounts if you don't wipe anyone else off the road each year, so they do reward you for being less of a maniac than your cronies. The fact is, because you have less experience than oldsters, you are on average more of a risk - whether you think you're being reckless or not.
What about if they prove statistically that a black person is more likely to have an accident (and I'm not saying they do) then is that a legitimate form of disrimination?

[beachbum]

Yeah, and what about the way those Chinese drive... oops :p emmmm la la la la la la la

[InvisibleDuncan]

What about if they prove statistically that a black person is more likely to have an accident (and I'm not saying they do) then is that a legitimate form of disrimination?
You've got me there. I don't know what would happen in that circumstance. Mind you, I don't think they're allowed to ask the question; I know I've never been asked about my race on an insurance form.

I think if that was ever to be the case, they'd probably be able to find an underlying cause - location or something. That said, they're allowed to discriminate based purely on gender.

[HarryW]

I guarantee you if women had to pay higher insurance because of gender discrimination, even if statistically backed, they (feminists that is) would be up in arms about it.