Floating nightmare

LazyJack;
No way in hell that Aussies sue more often than those of us in the US. Lawsuits are a national passtime here and we have more tort lawyers per capita than anyplace else. We have famous cases such as the one in which a woman plaintiff was awarded very big money because she bought a cup of coffee from a McDonalds restaurant. The coffee was hot, she was in her automobile, she spilled hot coffee on herself, ouchhh!, she sued for several million $. She won. There are plenty more cases equally as absurd. Alan is right! We have created a society in which we are given the tools to blame others for our own lack of common sense.

Generally speaking the boating industry has not been hit as frequently by frivolous and/or specious lawsuits as have other areas of our society. I'm glad for that

 

sorry messer, but its official, per capita we do
it has become SO bad that many things like fetes, picnics , carnivals, you name it have been cancelled because the cost of INSURANCE is too high and the organisers can be sued for ANYTHING, our papers are full of viscious lawyers looking for cases, its bad real bad, and I am scared to go into business here
There was a guy here went into surf half pissed)drunk) he got slammed into sand and was paralysed, He sued the life guards and won!! I mean its just got out of hand

 

Until the consciousness arrives that is aware of the real full costs of micro-managing people's lives, I don't know how to answer that question (short of moving somewhere else).
One of my favorite questions to people is, "Do you agree with the law that requires seat belts be worn when driving?"
A bit over half, maybe sixty percent, do indeed agree with the law. This is a real problem. At a very fundmantal level, they are saying, "Even though I myself would wear a seat belt anyway, I think it's okay for me to force others to wear theirs or pumish them. Anyway, I like knowing I have to wear one, because it forces me to do it, and I don't have to rely on my own sometimes bad judgement."
That answer is a bit half-baked. you mention lawsuits, but which came first? Lawsuits or laws that treat adults like infants? If the laws say we aren't capable of thinking about our own safety, then we naturally would expect responsibility to lie elsewhere. The courts, having carried out the laws that have determined we aren't responsible for our foolish decisions (e.g., injuring ourselves on another's property even when not invited) have paved the way for civil actions. Since it is conceivable to a person that their own common sense (in, for example, recognizing that their children are their own responsibility and ought to have been prevented from falling in the neighbor's chimmney when playing on the roof without permission) is flawed, the next step is to use the law to find someone else to blame. like a chicken pecking party, no one wins this game. People sue each other, and only lawyers and insurance companies gain. The people themselves all lose.
All this starts with laws. The courts use laws to determine fault. They recognize that the owner of a property wasn't guilty of any real offense, only that they technically have broken the law. The victim ends up being the one who wasn't wealthy enough to buy insurance or afford a lawyer. Only rarely is that person other than a victim of circumstance.
In a car accident, the damage isn't known, for instance, until you know whether the person you accidentally struck is wealthy and greedy and would gladly own your house that took decades to pay off in order to be compensated for a lack of sex drive since the accident occurred. Nor would the accident have necessarily been your fault. It might just be that it is discovered that you have a single hard-won asset, and yet no money to defend your argument.
So laws and regulations can be abused, and in fact it can be seen that the more laws we have, the more ammunition is given to those who can take from us---- the wealthy, the lawyers, the courts, and unscrupulous people in general. It is a system that rewards dishonesty and punishes the impoverished in most cases.
How to change the system? Change how people think, and that is impossible.
I suppose a start would be to admit that education is better than laws, that laws can do harm, and that we need to be more responsible for our own safety, even if that means we are not as safe ultimately. It is an admission that you can always trade life for freedom; we could all wear helmets down the street, or be barred from going offshore at all for pleasure. Then the statistics would reflect a safer society. But we might as well be dead anyway, because life wouldn't be worth living.

 

Stu,

I don't want to sound jingoistic, but I think the whiny whingy whimps in the US still have you beat in lawsuits, whichever way you figure it.

Some years back, a business associate was asked to rent his shop to a local court for a demonstration in a lawsuit against the mfr of a rotary shredder.

The machine operator claimed he lost 2 fingers because the shredder was defective. In the demo, he testified that he heard a funny noise from the machine. He decided to take the cover off so he could see the cause of the noise. The shredder had safety switches to kill the power if the cover was removed. He disabled the switches with tape so they could be bypassed, took the cover off while it was running, stuck his hand in to try to loosen something ..... he won the suit; jury said the safety switches should have been designed so it would be impossible to deliberately disable them!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

Alan,

Despite what I said about wearing PFD's in a canoe, I agree with you. We have too many regulations. The only justification is to protect children, but even then the regs don't help much, 'cuz imbeciles don't follow the regs. When there is a drowning from a boating accident, having to pay a $200. fine for lack of proper equipment doesn't make much difference to the survivors.

Just south of my home, state DOT announced that they had lowered speed limits along a stretch of US 41 by 5 mph. Hmmmmm ... what great improvement in safety will be wrought by a speed reduction of 5 mph? None, methinks. But what a nice increase in revenue this will create.

FL repealed the helmet law for motorcyclists a few years ago. A rare occurence, indeed, helped along by the many wealthy silvered-haired bikers in the state. I'd like to see every biker sign a waiver forgoing medical treatment beyond the limits of his insurance if he suffers a head injury. Right now the state is paying for a number of helmetless bikers without health insurance who are in comas. Sounds hard, I know, but if you want to be free to go helmetless, you should be prepared to pay the price, without having the taxpayers pay your tab.

 

Completely true. I see ads on TV now for that stupid "click it or ticket" campaign. Meanwhile drug dealers are not arrested because there aren't enough police in the felony squads to handle all the cases ... because too many are in the traffic squads!

Only a ***** would not buckle up. But that is an individual decision, and should not be regulated by the state. It is not possible to regulate all human behavior. No matter how many laws there are, stupid, uncaring parents will allow their children to be unsupervised, stupid fishermen will take their Cheapglass 15, overloaded with buddies and beer coolers, away from the shore without checking the weather, and dump truck drivers will take the wheel hungover and with too little sleep.

Civil law has become a game of "Gotcha!", providing job security for lawyers and beauraucrats. I was called for jury duty and put in a pool of prospective jurors for a property compensation case. The state gov't had taken land from a retail business to build a bigger bridge. The business owner had an appraisal, and the state had an appraisal. The gov't lawyer explained that it would be the job of the jury to determine the proper amount. The total amount was less than $1 million. I asked how long it would take, and he said it would take him 3-4 weeks to present his case. When the judge asked if anyone had personal beliefs that would prevent a fair deliberation and decision, I said that I was prejudiced against the government, because the process was a waste of taxpayers' money and my time. I pointed out that putting the parties and appraisers in a room for an hour or two would likely produce a negotiated settlement, save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not waste the time of the jurors, who were the only ones in the room not being paid to drag out the case. The judge said he thought of holding me in contempt for "possibly corrupting the other jurors", but settled for dismissing me. Every day our courts proceed at the slowest possible pace, dealing with trivial cases that lawyers turn into multimillion dollar paydays. Alan, you said once it might take a disaster to reform our society. You may be right.

 

I am a ***** at times, not being inclined to wear a seat belt because it bothers my concentration (I have a 37 year perfect driving record, drive like an old woman (No, not that one..., and have learned to pull over when people start riding my tail).
I get your meaning though. I wear the belt sometimes when I feel I should--- intuition. The law just got teeth in our state, "Bickle up! No excuses!" is their new motto, which I find sickening--- sounds like a kindergarten teacher warning toddlers. I end up slinging the belt over my shoulder and faking it. It's embarrassing and gross to have to play "good little boy" to save money on tickets.
It could easily be argued that while it sounds fair to refuse treatment by the state for helmetless riders being hurt, unfortumately this too could be carried forth in myriad other situations. For example, if my neighbor decides to use a chain saw even though he knows nothing about handling the tool, should he be refused treatment if injured? 35,000 nail gun incidents last year, I'm told, and no doubt many uninsured. Should they get no treatment? Almost all of those incidents were, I'm sure, preventable by reading and following the manual. Then too, some people live on soda and potato chips and watch TV all day long. Should they, who cost taxpayers billions of medical dollars, be refused treatment?
I used to ride motorcycles, and I always wore a helmet. I concentrated better without wind noise and my hair whipping around. I would fight to the death, however, to protect the right of another to not wear a helmet (well, I'd fight til I fell down).
One year at Laconia, New Hampshire, the big biker meet, I am sure I was the only biker wearing a helmet. I got a lot of stares from people on other bikes. I thought that was odd, but maybe they had reasons other than "freedom" for not wearing helmets, like being accepted.
I would have done as you did in that court case. And regarding that other case, the guy who bypassed the switches was probably suing because his insurance company was balking at paying. Most lawsuits are about the cost of medicine. Until this country has national medical care, this will go on because assignment of risk has a direct correllation to assignment of blame. We all know that strong lobbies by insurance companies and the bar association have bought and paid for most of congress. I have no medical insurance, and haven't for thirty years. Hence I concentrate when I use tools and drive cars. It's just too expensive.
There are also personal reasons for not buying insurance, which are philosophical, and that aspect of how I think belongs to another forum.
The law here requires auto insurance, but my record makes that cheap, something like $25 a month.
No, Charley, nothing will change until this country cannot survive itself any longer and the poop hits the fan hard. It's all about money, and the problem won't go away until the money goes away and there's nobody left to squeeze it out of.

 

No, Charley, nothing will change until this country cannot survive itself any longer and the poop hits the fan hard. It's all about money, and the problem won't go away until the money goes away and there's nobody left to squeeze it out of.[/QUOTE]
your probs are much more than just this, your lose of fredom , is nigh complete
i just watched a doc on the FBI AGENT Turk woman , who was stopped from clearing her name because it was (all too sensitive) in other words people at the top were in danger of being exposed the neo conservatives who run your place, it most sickening, scary to say least. She was denied access supreme court, watched her along with that blond ex fbi agent
the drive to control not only you, but the world(missile shield in Poland) my ***,
Strange that people like Pute have to protect the world from USA, Strange how, blind some can be, like the gov of Chzeck REp. and Poland. I can not travel beyond Tr to the east, Bush has ruined the world as we know it , in a few short years
i used to have a bike, mobike too, depends if I,m doing a full on flat chat mountain ride, I wll put it on, if I,m just riding to enjoy the sun, like Aussies(who cant ride)) or Americans) I leave it off, Not talking abt the odd few who make it to the top of the Moto GP like Stoner
in italy last year EVERY one wears helmet, but they race literally, they always have it wrapped right round, I would get left behind, genious's on the bike those Italians
Scuse the typin, , feel ill today,

 

Hopes yer feeling right as rain come morning, Jack.
I haven't been following that story you mentioned---- but no doubt will tomorrow. On the good news front, Bush is finding out that being "King of the world" has it's limitations. I hope the world can see that the laws of this country are beginning to erode the power of this administration bit by bit, especially in Guantanimo, and with regard to torture camps in eastern Europe.
I would like to see the system work at a faster pace. I think (if we all survive this presidency), new laws will be legislated that would prevent the abuses carried out by the current administration.
The world does not see the great rift that exists today between the government's official statements and the will of the people, and rightfully so, since the people have allowed all this nonsense to happen. We are, we will discover, our brother's keeper. A lot of patching up has to be done. It's up in the air right now.
I remember Bush condescendingly bashing Putin a couple of years ago on Moscow TV. Putin was furious. I knew then Bush was sowing the seeds of animosity exactly when he himself was running a secret white house agenda to circumvent the very laws he accused Putin of disregarding.
For the leader of Russia, I can understand how insulting that must have been.
Who would trust such a two-faced liar as Bush? Frankly, it's amazing how close he gets to the line without crossing it. It is as if a genious has found a way to lead the world into utter chaos in the least amount of time, to the greatest impact, like a fiendish chess game played so artfully that it is never conceded because hope is strung out long enough to take all the pieces on the board first.

 

you and I have a great deal in common

 

Talk about bloodsucking hypocrites!

This guy has to be a scumbag of the lowest order; lower than whales__t!

"A Washington DC judge has pressed a $64 million lawsuit against a dry-cleaning shop he says violated consumer-protection laws when it lost his pants.

Roy L Pearson, an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, has told a local court that Custom Cleaners should pay the sum because a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign deceived consumers. ... He has counted 12 separate violations of a consumer-protection law over 1,200 days, multiplied by the three defendants. At more than $1,700 per day, that is more than $77 million. He also seeks $17,800 to rent a car to take his clothes to another cleaner for the next 10 years, among other charges.

Mr Pearson has rejected several settlement offers. He has since reduced his claim to $64 million.

The case, expected to conclude on Wednesday (local time), has attracted attention as an example of over-litigiousness in the United States.

The Washington Post has questioned whether Mr Pearson should remain in his job hearing cases involving the decisions of DC government agencies.

"The case raises serious questions about his judgment and temperament," the newspaper wrote in an editorial. "

I disagree with the Washington Post. This case proves beyond any doubt that this guy is an unqualified jerk who needs to be removed from his position!

 

i shud flag this post cos it makes me fee ill

 

Raises serious questions about his judgement and temperment? There's no question. Hmmm. Do you think he might lack judgement? The press is too kind. It is like an ax murderer who has just described his last ten kills.
"This raises questions about this man's judgement and temperment!"
Seems a bit more obvious than that.

 

Colin Powell said yesterday he would close the detainment center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Not let them go, just move them to US federal or military prison system, where they would be subject to Geneva Convention rules and the beginning of a procedure to either find them guilty or acquit them.

Powell was the only top Administration official to argue against the unlimited imprisonment of suspected combatants without any legal protection. Of course, he was the only top admin official with actual combat experience, so what would he know about treatment of military prisoners?? What would a career soldier and former head of all US military forces know about the best way to handle suspected combatants?

His reasoning is that this Administration has given away the moral high ground that America has had in the past; that this policy has provided validation for the things that the extremist mullahs have been teaching about the "evil " US; in short, that the many things wrong with this practice far outweigh any dubious benefits.

He's said what I've been thinking and saying. That policy is like something out of Kafka.

Bush had so much going for him 6 years ago. Those neocon idiots have squandered every bit of good will we ever had, wasted billions, and created a conflict in which young men and women are dying in a cause that has no clearcut and worthy plan to reach its objective.

I had to get that out.

 

Bush had so much going for him 6 years ago. Those neocon idiots have squandered every bit of good will we ever had, wasted billions, and created a conflict in which young men and women are dying in a cause that has no clearcut and worthy plan to reach its objective.

I had to get that out.\

um you have been reading my diary, thought it was hidden from prying eyes.

 

Get it all out, Charlie. This is the stability forum, after all. I think we'd all get a bit unstable if we couldn't comiserate.
We were headed for this a long time ago. This generation, the baby boomers--- reckless, and self-centered. Bush is our bitter harvest, for the seeds we've sown.
There're a few out there still a little slow on the uptake. Living it up on the Titanic. It's the story of humanity, like it or not.