# Compensation culture and punitive damages



## xarruc

*Compensation culture is a scourge across the land!
*

I think it is undeniable that compensation culture* has changed modern society in many countries. The main 'culprit' was no-win-no-fee-lawers who made anyone with the time to waste having a go. The compensation is rarely confined to medical and other costs caused by another, but extends to awarding money for dubious "stress" and in cases, just to punish the company at fault. The punitive side of the damages don't go to a charity bu to the individual. If your daughter dies tragically you may well get more money than you could ever spend.

It's very easy to assume that it is a harmless thing that punishes those big nasty corporations and eases the pain of the victims, but the truth is that we all pay for it - the costs of protection against idiots is passed on to us, as higher prices or taxes, the costs of punitive damages is also passed on. People no longer have to take responsibility for themselves, and what's worse, cynically manipulate the truth for financial gain (the latest is forcing people  (cars) into the back of you). Organisations take draconian action to protect themselves from litigation. Kid's mothers (or fathers) can no longer bake cakes for the kids to share with friends on their Birthday at school. (I might not be hygenic). Burglars can sue if they are injured during a buglary.

A couple of days a student sued her landlord because while she was drunk, she trespassed onto a garage roof adjoining her flat and then fell through a skylight. - He should have warned her that such an act was dangerous.

On the other hand it has forced companies (except mine - Spain's a bit behind!) to take fire safey and so on seriously.


How do you feel about compensation culture and punitive damages? How strong are they in your society. Where does personal responsibilty stop?


-----------


*Compensation culture - A *compensation culture* is a society in which it is acceptable for anyone who has suffered a personal injury to seek compensatory damages through litigation from someone connected with the injury, even when the injury is trivial or the connection is tenuous. The term is pejorative, and commonly used in Britain and Ireland. The stereotypical wrongly-sued victim is a local authority on whose uneven footpath someone has tripped and fallen, and the plaintiff is an individual who formerly would have just cursed their back luck, but is now persuaded by an ambulance chasing law firm or claims management company to sue.

(Wiki / Answers.com)


----------



## french4beth

I think that a person should be compensated if they are injured, etc. However, things have really gotten out of hand in the US. If there were limits as to what a plaintiff could expect to receive, and penalties for frivolous lawsuits, there would be much less abuse. As it is, we citizens all pay, and it seems the only winners are the lawyers!  I've heard of burglars suing because they were injured during home invasions, and actually collecting money from the crime victims - yuck!


----------



## .   1

I assume that there will be some fraud in all human endeavours.
This does not mean that we should punish the real victims.

Punitive or exemplary financial compensation is the only way to force Big Business to place some value on the health and wellbeing of their slaves.

I have heard lots of inflated claims of people being awarded fanciful sums for trivial injury and I have also heard the old saw about the thief claiming injury compensation from a victim but I have never been able to track down the original source.
It is always a story that a mate heard while he was drinking in a new pub and met a couple of geezers from Upper Cumbucta West who had an uncle who once owned a shop that was visited by a woman who knew the daughter of the veterinarian of the victim's cat.

I know of many cases of people who have been injured both intentionally and negligently who have ruined lives and no compensation.

Taxes don't go up. Insurance representatives have slightly reduced increased profit margins.

It is about time that society faced up to the fact that society should face up to it's own muck ups and this new era of plausable deniability is sickening.

What would you have done with people who are genuinely injured?
Do you have any actual cases of foolish compensation in mind?
Could you give an example of 'dubious stress' being awarded compensation?  How is this stress dubious or is all stress dubious?

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

One of the worst current legal trends sweeping North America is the so-called "social host liability." This basically means that if you throw a party at your home and someone gets drunk, leaves, and then gets into trouble at an entirely different place, you're held responsible just because you provided alcohol to that person (or even just because you allowed its consumption on your premises in case it was a bring-your-own-booze event).


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> One of the worst current legal trends sweeping North America is the so-called "social host liability." This basically means that if you throw a party at your home and someone gets drunk, leaves, and then gets into trouble at an entirely different place, you're held responsible just because you provided alcohol to that person (or even just because you allowed its consumption on your premises in case it was a bring-your-own-booze event).


I am at a loss to understand your complaint.
If you hold a party and you allow one of your guests to become drunk and then that guest with the diminished responsibility of a drunk wanders out and trashes another person's life you should be deemed at least partly responsible because had you not caused your guest to become intoxicated to the point of drunkness the resultant trouble would not have occurred.

.,,
You can't push a pebble and ignore the avalanche.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> I am at a loss to understand your complaint.
> If you hold a party and you allow one of your guests to become drunk and then that guest with the diminished responsibility of a drunk wanders out and trashes another person's life you should be deemed at least partly responsible because had you not caused your guest to become intoxicated to the point of drunkness the resultant trouble would not have occurred.



Um... how exactly have I _caused _that person to become drunk? Have I forcibly shoved the drink down his throat? And why stop there? Why not also punish the liquor store that sold the booze? And the producer who manufactured it and sold it to the store? Perhaps also the farmers that grew the grain and the grapes? And why not the glass manufacturer who made the bottles and glasses too? The orchestrated efforts of all those people were necessary for this unfortunate event to happen. God forbid that we might consider grown-up individuals solely responsible for their individual actions. 

If I end up having ~50 guests, both invited and uninvited, constantly going in and out of my house, am I supposed to run the whole night from one to another making sure that nobody is having even one too much? And if the party is BYOB (which is the standard around here), how am I supposed to control who has brought and drunk what? 

You can certainly make a case that having a party is an inherently dangerous activity that should be suppressed. But the idea that the party host should be responsible for what other grown up, mentally healthy people have done by their own free will, on their own initiative, and in circumstances in which it's impossible to control them, strikes me as utterly absurd.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> You can certainly make a case that having a party is an inherently dangerous activity that should be suppressed. But the idea that the party host should be responsible for what other grown up, mentally healthy people have done by their own free will, on their own initiative, and in circumstances in which it's impossible to control them, strikes me as utterly absurd.


It seems inherently logical to me.
Just imagine that you hold a party and your guests eat too much food and many of them lean over your neighbour's fence and vomit into his patio.

Would you feel responsible to clean up the mess or would you just tell your neighbour to go and grow a sense of humour?

Please feel free to draw as long a bow as you will in this matter but please do not expect me to fall for the extrapolated response defence or you will wind up blaming the insects that pollinated the grain that grew the house that Jack built.

You might also let me know about these responsible adults who get pissed and cause trouble.  I have yet to meet such a chimera.

.,,


----------



## ElaineG

> If I end up having ~50 guests, both invited and uninvited, constantly going in and out of my house, am I supposed to run the whole night from one to another making sure that nobody is having even one too much? And if the party is BYOB (which is the standard around here), how am I supposed to control who has brought and drunk what?


 
Sounds pretty negligent to me. Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

In all seriousness, the principle behind the rules, which are only an extension of rules that apply to bars and nightclubs, is that drunk driving is an extremely costly social evil that everyone should be incentivized to prevent.

As for the main question, I defend large institutions for a living, not products liability, but I do work on class actions brought by shareholders, pensionholders and the like.  There is a lot of litigation that I regard as stupid and frivolous.   But without the annoying plaintiffs' lawyers and their 33% an awful lot of abuses would go unchecked in this country -- whether it's cars and motorcycles that are "unsafe at any speed," dubious medical innovations, toxic waste that has poisoned communities for decades, rampant cooking of the books, etc. etc.  It's not a perfect system by any means, but for every story of frivolous recovery I've ever heard, I've heard one of people whose only way to fight back against arrogant careless doctors, indifferent corporations, corrupt or discriminatory employers was through the civil legal system.


----------



## .   1

ElaineG said:


> Sounds pretty negligent to me. Friends don't let friends drive drunk.


The disinhibiting and anti-social effects of excessive alcohol consumption has been established beyond any benefit of even the slightest shred of doubt.
It is disingenuous to claim that a responsible party thrower will allow inebriated party gowers to throw up and cause mayhem and to have the party thrower simply do a Pontius Pilot and wash liver coloured hands.
A person who knowingly allows a drunk to wander at large is aiding and abeting the actions of the drunk.
If a person does something that causes a large group of drunks to congregate and then flood the community with them is socially irresponsible and now, apparently and not a moment too soon, legally responsible.
I am not a big fan of new laws but this one seems to be a pearler and I will drink to it.



ElaineG said:


> It's not a perfect system by any means, but for every story of frivolous recovery I've ever heard, I've heard one of people whose only way to fight back against arrogant careless doctors, indifferent corporations, corrupt or discriminatory employers was through the civil legal system.


Too true.  You can't send a corporation to jail.
One of the biggest mistakes that big business made was to have a company declared able to stand as a defendant.  It solved a lot of their criminal problems but opened Pandora's Civil Litigation.
Hoisted on the petard of legal technicalities.  How perfect.

.,,


----------



## xarruc

> I have heard lots of inflated claims of people being awarded fanciful sums for trivial injury and I have also heard the old saw about the thief claiming injury compensation from a victim but I have never been able to track down the original source.





> It is always a story that a mate heard while he was drinking in a new pub and met a couple of geezers from Upper Cumbucta West who had an uncle who once owned a shop that was visited by a woman who knew the daughter of the veterinarian of the victim's cat.


 

Here I have found a whole archive of such storeis, straight from the horse’s, or if you prefer, cat’s mouth: http://www.overlawyered.com





> Taxes don't go up.


 
If taxpayers money is spent on these cases then it comes from somewhere:


Legal aid
Administration of the court system
Pay-outs awarded by government bodies
Costs of ensuring that government bodies never do anything that can get them sued.



> It is about time that society faced up to the fact that society should face up to it's own muck ups and this new era of plausable (sic) deniability is sickening.


 
Out of your post this quote seems to back the argument against compensation culture. 

The trouble with compensation culture is that it is one-sided. If you have money then you are a target. I have heard that doctors won’t deliver babies in the states as they open themselves to litigation in the event of a complication, instead midwives do it because they haven’t the money and hence don’t get sued. The companies don’t take a member of the public to court because they were sick in the shop and it caused distress to the poor employee who cleaned it up, yet that employee sues the company because said cleaning made her stressed.





> What would you have done with people who are genuinely injured?


 
Many people are genuinely injured many times a day and yet there is no one at fault. In countries where there is a free health service it is not a problem to receive the necessary treatment. If the injury was caused intentionally then the culprit should pay for medical treatment and be punished in a suitable way. The same should happen if the accident would have been prevented by compliance with established safety requirements.

If the injury is a result pure misfortune, unforeseeable and unlucky then no one should be sued. The genuinely injured should find their own way to deal with it.




> Do you have any actual cases of foolish compensation in mind?


Apart from the one in the first post there are several that come to mine, by the link provided above certainly has some.




> Could you give an example of 'dubious stress' being awarded compensation? How is this stress dubious or is all stress dubious?


 
Come on! Don’t tell me you don’t think that “stress” is a pretty intangible thing that is played up for the benefit of the courts? Sure people meet with stressful situations. Some they anticipate (bomb disposal), others come through chance (family tragedy), some come from work (high work load, neurotic colleagues). Stress is something that we all have to deal with. If the stressed individual needs pills or shrinks following the event that caused the litigation, and the defendant was in the wrong then the defendant should pay those costs as such costs are as tangible as the stress can get. To say here’s a million because your pet lizard died and you were upset, and maybe it will make you feel better, is ridiculous.




> If you hold a party and you allow one of your guests to become drunk and then that guest with the diminished responsibility of a drunk wanders out and trashes another person's life you should be deemed at least partly responsible because had you not caused your guest to become intoxicated to the point of drunkness the resultant trouble would not have occurred.


 



> It is about time that society faced up to the fact that society should face up to it's own muck ups and this new era of plausable (sic) deniability is sickening.


 
To what point should the drunken guest face up to their own muck up? In a party of 100 it is nigh on impossible to keep track of them all. What do you want, security guards that won’t allow guests to leave without your express permission? – Isn’t that tantamount to illegal incarceration What if the host falls ill, should they have appointed a deputy? What if they convincingly lie to the host that they are sober? If they drop by and have one for the road on the way home and then crash, was it your 3 pints or the bars pint wot did it? Perhaps the host should feel guilty. Maybe they do. That doesn’t make them financially liable.




> You can't push a pebble and ignore the avalanche.


Your not attacking the pebble pusher, you’re attacking the person who left the pebble in such a way that it tempts someone else to push it. You are in fact excusing the pebble pusher.




> Just imagine that you hold a party and your guests eat too much food and many of them lean over your neighbour's fence and vomit into his patio.


 
You may feel partly responsible. You may clean it up. Of course the gluttons should do it, as they are the responsible ones – you didn’t force them to eat. There is a big difference between an individual choosing to right someone else’s wrong and being forced to do so by a court.




> You might also let me know about these responsible adults who get pissed and cause trouble. I have yet to meet such a chimera.


 
I am glad to know that not one person you know ever does anything you deem irresponsible. So that’s not one drug-taker, speeder, person who has one too many from time to time, drives on the phone, smokes around children, doesn’t recycle, uses antibiotics needlessly…. Of course what you deem irresponsible is individual to you. I might have a different criteria.




> Sounds pretty negligent to me. Friends don't let friends drive drunk.


 
Not all guests are friends. There are colleagues (including superiors), friends of friends, family. Do you tell swanky clients how to behave when you’re trying to woo their cash? It’s easy to say “Friends don't let friends drive drunk.” And much harder in practice. I’ve tried. In the end sometimes you have to say: “It is about time that you faced up to the fact that you should face up to your own muck ups and this new era of plausable deniability is sickening.


----------



## xarruc

> drunk driving is an extremely costly social evil that everyone should be incentivized to prevent.


 
I fully agree. I think peer pressure is the only way. It has been incredibly effective in the UK. You have to break the macho “I can drive drunk” concept and replace it with “only an idiot drives drunk”. Passing the buck can only make it worse.
 



> But without the annoying plaintiffs' lawyers and their 33% an awful lot of abuses would go unchecked in this country


 
I agree. I think litigation has done wonders for corporate responsibility. I am not against culprits paying to right their wrongs, just the ease with which all personal responsibility is waived.
 



> A person who knowingly allows a drunk to wander at large is aiding and abeting the actions of the drunk.


 
I assume that you spend your Saturday night rounding them up – or do you wash your hands of society’s problem?
 



> If a person does something that causes a large group of drunks to congregate and then flood the community with them is socially irresponsible and now, apparently and not a moment too soon, legally responsible.


 
Bring back prohibition and Al Capone! I don’t think that being drunk is so bad. Some drunks do bad things, some kids do bad things. Maybe we should ban youth centers and schools, as they cause a large group of youths to congregate and then flood the community with them.
 
 
 
But for the most naïve of the statements:
 



> Insurance representatives have slightly reduced increased profit margins.



 
Do you really believe this? My God! They just put up the premiums to cover it! In fact more than ever you have to be insured for all sorts, just in case an idiot trips over his shoelace on your ground. The insurance companies must be doing great out of it.
 
One of the big problems in the Western world is that people believe money grows on trees. Fine Coca Cola 100,000,000 €. They don’t need it! But the cost is always passed on. The public at large pay. These plaintiffs that become overnight millionaires due to a little misfortune do so at our expense. If punitive damages are a good way to punish companies, and hence their shareholders and hence their managers, then the money could at least be returned to society. Sure the plaintiff has had misfortune. They should be recompensed for financial loss (including lost earnings). Perhaps the awards should be in the form of vouchers only redeemable for appropriate services (physiotherapy, psychologists etc.). In doing so the number of frivolous court cases would drop almost to zero. The genuine victims would still be cared for.
 
In my personal experience Spain is a lot happier for that fact that litigation culture has not fully arrived. True they do things that would be truly unimaginable in the UK with it’s health and safety laws – look up correfoc and castellers on google images or spend St Joan’s here. But it’s coming. The annual soup festival no doubt will be a thing of the past soon. All that home cooking in potentially dirty kitchens. All those people eating and passing on germs. Bring on the lawyers!


----------



## Benjy

I know this is going to sound awful, I do love my sister, but I'm going to tell the story anyways.

My sister got rear-ended coming home on the M1, and she sued the driver and got given free physio and... £5000 pound cash compensation. What?? Free physio: great, it was exactly what she needed. The money that she gained came from the other man's insurance policy.

So why did she merit 5000 quid? Hum? She managed to pay off her credit card the remainder of her student loan and buy a new car. Now who paid for that in the end? It's just as xarruc mentioned, the public via increased insurance premiums. In England at least insurance has risen, and it has been directly attributable to the increase in personal compensation claims.

Here is just a random sample of some of the wonderful headings that seem to appear in the newspapers these days: 



			
				Daily mail said:
			
		

> THE case of danger driver James Boffey, who was fined just GBP 200 after killing a young cyclist, took another sickening twist yesterday. It emerged that the 18-year-old tearaway won almost GBP 8,000 compensation after an accident even though he had no right to be on the road.
> Boffey has never passed his test and has been convicted nine times of driving without a licence or insurance. But he received the insurance payout after claiming he suffered whiplash injuries when a car he was driving illegally hit a taxi in Liverpool last year.



Another..



			
				Daily mail said:
			
		

> Thecompanies claim they are struggling to turn a profit because of fierce competition from Internetbased firms and rising costs, particularly spiralling personal injury claims.
> 
> In the past year alone, personal injury claims have gone up by 10 per cent and are expected to continue rising.


----------



## maxiogee

Benjy said:


> I know this is going to sound awful, I do love my sister, but I'm going to tell the story anyways.



The other side of that story, from across the Irish Sea.

My son was knocked off his bicycle by a motorist who wasn't looking where he was going. He was about 15 or so at the time.
His bicycle was a write-off and he suffered some minor grazes and some long-term pain in a sprained wrist and a torn ligament in his shoulder.
The driver refused to admit any liability. (Possibly due to his being a hackney driver - a class of taxi) 
We were out of pocket by a couple of hundred Euro.
We sued.
His insurance company decided to fight it.
They demanded that 'their' specialist see our son on several occasions. They demanded certain reports from 'our' specialist - we hadn't had a specialist, we had gone through the general health service in the local hospital. We ran up a few more hundred euro in bills.
Eventually the case was scheduled to be heard and we now required a barrister, along with the solicitors we had engaged.
The two sets of barristers and solicitors met one day when i was out of the country. The driver's insurance company offered a take-it-or-leave-it settlement. They were willing to pay my son a large four-figure sum without admitting liability. 
My son was staggered at the amount but thought the issue of liability was more important as a point of principle - he knew he had been in the right. He said 'No' and set a meeting with the barrister to ensure that the details of the case were fully understood.
On the morning the case was to be heard, in the precincts of the courts, the insurance company offered a new deal - a low five-figure and our costs and an admission of liability.
My son accepted.

Now I don't know who 'drove' the process on the other side - whether it was the driver or his insurance company. Either way, costs which were almost totally unnecessary were incurred by both sides. The settlement was ridiculously high judged by any standard - even allowing for the unassessible 'pain and suffering' which he suffered. That was the insurance company's doing - and I was informed by our barrister that it would apparently have been calculated on previous tried cases before the judge in question - a figure high enough to be worth our serious consideration, but quite a bit lower than they might have to pay had we won - and we had no guarantee of winning.

Blame the insurance companies for high settlements and blame them too for the fact that they incur these costs willingly - using your premiums.


----------



## .   1

xarruc said:


> Here I have found a whole archive of such storeis, straight from the horse’s, or if you prefer, cat’s mouth:


http://www.overlawyered.com
Perhaps that should be the shyster's mouth.
I read them and found not one case of overcompensation.
The skylight case was settled for 'a nuisance sum'
The skylight that the boy fell through (possibly as part of a prank of the type that I took part in as a kid during muck-up day at high school and apparently *four other kids had done at similar skylights at similar schools shortly before the 19 year old became a spastic quadriplegic*).

Here is your archive (I skipped the religious anti-Muslim _merde_)
a whistleblower, or disgruntled ex-employee (take your pick)





xarruc said:


> If taxpayers money is spent on these cases then it comes from somewhere:





xarruc said:


> Legal aid
> Administration of the court system
> Pay-outs awarded by government bodies
> Costs of ensuring that government bodies never do anything that can get them sued.


If idiot lawyers don't convince petty officials to try to defend fatally flawed cases just as a warning to others this kind of waste would be avoided. 
The main weapon that Big Business has to club the victim with is litigation.
The corrupt swine drag the matter through the courts for years and decades and then bleat about the high cost of litigation.
What is the sound of the pot scraping the kettles barnicles?





xarruc said:


> Out of your post this quote seems to back the argument against compensation culture.


Why? I am not saying that a person should not be compensated if the injury was not caused by factors that were not within the control of the offender.

*Why did you see fit to (sic) me?!!*
Are you confused by my poor spelling?
Did you need to tell the sub-editor to not change the spelling mistake on the automatic quote?
This is a cultural forum and I will not waste your time telling you the difference between your and you're! How do you pronounce petty and condecending in your 'cultural' circles?




xarruc said:


> The trouble with compensation culture is that it is one-sided. If you have money then you are a target. I have heard that doctors won’t deliver babies in the states as they open themselves to litigation in the event of a complication, instead midwives do it because they haven’t the money and hence don’t get sued. The companies don’t take a member of the public to court because they were sick in the shop and it caused distress to the poor employee who cleaned it up, yet that employee sues the company because said cleaning made her stressed.


I don't believe this. This sounds like another inflated claim.





xarruc said:


> Many people are genuinely injured many times a day and yet there is no one at fault. In countries where there is a free health service it is not a problem to receive the necessary treatment. If the injury was caused intentionally then the culprit should pay for medical treatment and be punished in a suitable way. The same should happen if the accident would have been prevented by compliance with established safety requirements.





xarruc said:


> If the injury is a result pure misfortune, unforeseeable and unlucky then no one should be sued. The genuinely injured should find their own way to deal with it.


I totally agree.





xarruc said:


> Apart from the one in the first post there are several that come to mine, by the link provided above certainly has some.


The link was empty rhetoric. Do you have some more?





xarruc said:


> Come on! Don’t tell me you don’t think that “stress” is a pretty intangible thing that is played up for the benefit of the courts? Sure people meet with stressful situations. Some they anticipate (bomb disposal), others come through chance (family tragedy), some come from work (high work load, neurotic colleagues). Stress is something that we all have to deal with. If the stressed individual needs pills or shrinks following the event that caused the litigation, and the defendant was in the wrong then the defendant should pay those costs as such costs are as tangible as the stress can get. To say here’s a million because your pet lizard died and you were upset, and maybe it will make you feel better, is ridiculous.


Stress is as real as the memory of a destroyed life. I shudder to think is an old saying not for no reason.
Stress does not come from a flipping lizzard and I find your extremely flippant and disingenuous responses to be strange.
What has stressed you out so much over this matter?
What vested interest do you have to declare?
Why are you so gleefully attacking so many valid victims with inflated and outrageous counter claims of fluff?





xarruc said:


> To what point should the drunken guest face up to their own muck up? In a party of 100 it is nigh on impossible to keep track of them all. What do you want, security guards that won’t allow guests to leave without your express permission? – Isn’t that tantamount to illegal incarceration What if the host falls ill, should they have appointed a deputy? What if they convincingly lie to the host that they are sober? If they drop by and have one for the road on the way home and then crash, was it your 3 pints or the bars pint wot did it? Perhaps the host should feel guilty. Maybe they do. That doesn’t make them financially liable.


You missed my point entirely.
I was asking about how much responsibility you felt as a neighbour to rectify the situation.
I wondered how guilty you would have felt about unleashing a mob of drunken hoons on them.
The inference for the quick witted was that the same sense of responsibility should be felt by the party thrower if the antisocial behavious spreads out over town.





xarruc said:


> Your not attacking the pebble pusher, you’re attacking the person who left the pebble in such a way that it tempts someone else to push it. You are in fact excusing the pebble pusher.


Nonsense. The pebble pusher is cleaning up the vomit of the drunken guests that he avalanched on his neighbour.





xarruc said:


> You may feel partly responsible. You may clean it up. Of course the gluttons should do it, as they are the responsible ones – you didn’t force them to eat. There is a big difference between an individual choosing to right someone else’s wrong and being forced to do so by a court.


The court only forces irresponsible, antisocial, lawer hiring, loop-hole crawling, shirkers to face the result of their action.





xarruc said:


> I am glad to know that not one person you know ever does anything you deem irresponsible. So that’s not one drug-taker, speeder, person who has one too many from time to time, drives on the phone, smokes around children, doesn’t recycle, uses antibiotics needlessly…. Of course what you deem irresponsible is individual to you. I might have a different criteria.


Extrapolate as far as you like. You are not swilling with your mates at the Bar. I did not mention drug takers or speeders or mobile phone drivers or smokes around children or uses antibiotics needlessly or scratches their arse in public unless of course they were pissed at the time.
I am deeply outraged by people who have one too many *from time to time* which means habitually and then wanders around being a drunken arsehole and is then defended by apparently erudite people because they have just had one too many. How much trouble is caused by a person who has had *one *too many. That one drink must be huge.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Edit:
RE above post.
I could not fit the contents of the links alleging overcompensation so here is what I read.
Fortunately -- though not for Ferron or Burdge -- Ohio judges had some common sense,

Whether the contract is fair or not, I can't say; Autrey claiming he signed it without reading it certainly doesn't win him any sympathy points with me.

A judge on Friday dropped the Beverly Hills Unified School District from a lawsuit

Just tell ‘em you’re a doctor. ... Booooiiinnnggggg. ... Bounced out like a SuperBall on a hot, dry pavement."

The old WASP-lightbulb joke comes to life at the headquarters of the BBC, although while waiting in the dark staff are expected to pass the time with a health and safety manual rather than a drink

Were the skylights safe? Perhaps not; there had been other accidents (all involving trespassers) at other schools, though not long enough before Bodine's accident for a school bureaucracy to have time to react.
 
*I am still looking for the million dollars for the pet reptile but all I found was a lot of reptillian slime from a murder of serpiginous crows.*
 
.,,


----------



## .   1

Benjy said:


> So why did she merit 5000 quid?


Dealt with the daily pain and suffering of an injury severe enough to warrant ongoing physiotherapy.
If a bloke punched you in the face and broke your nose would you be happy for him to pay your doctor's bills and get on with his life or would you feel that some additional form of censure should be placed upon him to deter future actions and to help you to deal with the headaches and depridations of a broken nose?

.,,


----------



## .   1

xarruc said:


> *Compensation culture is a scourge across the land!*
> 
> A couple of days a student sued her landlord because while she was drunk, she trespassed onto a garage roof adjoining her flat and then fell through a skylight. - He should have warned her that such an act was dangerous.


What is the current status of the litigation?
Could you provide any link to this case?
How do you know that the student was trespassing?
What does trespassing have to do with the case?
Was access specifically denied to the student?
Did the landlord follow health and safety requirements?
The landlord was operating a business of supplying merchantable accommodation.
What would you do if you hired a motel room and then wandered out onto a roof space and fell through an unguarded skylight?
This is exactly the same concept as an unsafe well.  It is not good enough to put up a sign.  Some people are permenantly illiterate and some are chemically illiterate and others just don't notice notices or sign signs.  If the well is accessable it needs to be rendered safe.
If the skylight, you have a passion for these cases (do I smell the fulsome stench of professional research?), was accessable and unsafe then it should have been rendered safe by any responsible business owner.

What does the fact that this person is a student have to do with the question?

.,,
Is this really a real case or is it a case of cases of cases compiled into a parable?


----------



## Benjy

It was in the news yesterday (UK).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1807571/posts

full article  

I would like to add that the claim was thrown out today.



			
				The Mirror March 29 said:
			
		

> A JUDGE has thrown out a compensation claim made by a "highly intelligent" woman who knocked back wine and vodka jelly before falling through a skylight.
> Sir John Blofeld, sitting at London's High Court, branded Anna Mayers and her friends "trespassers".
> He said: "They had no authority to go on to the garage roof. It was not part of their premises as demised in their tenancy."


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Sounds pretty negligent to me. Friends don't let friends drive drunk.
> 
> In all seriousness, the principle behind the rules, which are only an extension of rules that apply to bars and nightclubs, is that drunk driving is an extremely costly social evil that everyone should be incentivized to prevent.



But preventing it by placing such an impossible responsibility on a party host sounds to me pretty much equivalent to preventing it by banning social events with alcohol altogether. Unless you hire a chaperon for everyone, or strictly centralize the distribution of drinks and keep strict accounting of who drank what, it's plain impossible to ensure that nobody will drink over the legal DUI limit and then just leave while still having BAC over .08%. From the point of view of incentives, you might as well make throwing a party (a BYOB party, at any rate) a crime _per se_.

As for the application of such rules to bars and clubs, let alone individuals, over here they aren't applied in practice. On many occasions, I've drunk ridiculous amounts of alcohol in bars and clubs and I've never been asked to stop ordering, while the idea of being asked not to drink over .08% BAC would sound ridiculous at just about any party I've been to in my life. (Personally, I don't drive and I never misbehave badly regardless of how much I've drunk.) If plaintiffs were really going after the bar owners and party hosts every time someone drives drunk or gets into some other trouble while drunk, I doubt there would be any social drinking whatsoever taking place.


----------



## .   1

Benjy said:


> I would like to add that the claim was thrown out today.


Thanks mate.
This is the final bit that chasers of ambulance chasers always seem to neglect.
It was thrown out. Ergo it is not a problem.
To refer to it as though it were a real possibility is bordering on having two feet firmly beyond the pale of honesty.
If this is the type of rhetoric employed by shysters defending Big Business I am not surprised if some judges are not tempted to apply a little punitive action of their own to make such practice less profitable. More power to morality over legality.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> The disinhibiting and anti-social effects of excessive alcohol consumption has been established beyond any benefit of even the slightest shred of doubt.
> It is disingenuous to claim that a responsible party thrower will allow inebriated party gowers to throw up and cause mayhem and to have the party thrower simply do a Pontius Pilot and wash liver coloured hands.
> A person who knowingly allows a drunk to wander at large is aiding and abeting the actions of the drunk.
> If a person does something that causes a large group of drunks to congregate and then flood the community with them is socially irresponsible and now, apparently and not a moment too soon, legally responsible.
> I am not a big fan of new laws but this one seems to be a pearler and I will drink to it.



But as I've written in the post above, the responsibility that such a liability puts on the host makes it impossible to avoid liability in practice. You might as well criminalize throwing parties altogether. 

Overall, I think this is a cultural thing peculiar to the English-speaking New World. In most of Europe, gathering together for some drinking and merriment is considered as a perfectly normal and respectable activity, in which almost everyone participates from time to time, and the responsibility for any incidents is ascribed solely to the individual perpetrators. Here however (and I'm sure your country shares the same relevant cultural traits), I've noticed that attitudes like yours are very widespread, seeing looming apocalypse and mayhem where I'm just seeing some people having fun. But unfortunately we're getting completely off-topic now.


----------



## maxiogee

Benjy said:


> It was in the news yesterday (UK).
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1807571/posts
> 
> full article
> 
> I would like to add that the claim was thrown out today.



Were costs awarded against the plaintiff, do you know?
What does it end up costing the state in staffing courts and all the other stuff which is involved in bringing a case to this point?
Someone has to pay when a solicitor (and probably later a barrister) tells a twit that they have a case worth taking. Her solicitor should be questioned to see what advice the client received.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Thanks mate.
> This is the final bit that chasers of ambulance chasers always seem to neglect.
> It was thrown out. Ergo it is not a problem.



That's not necessarily true. Someone's frivolous suit can still cost you a lot of money, time, effort, and stress, even if the case is eventually thrown out. I would perceive the very possibility of being sued as a very serious threat even if I knew for sure that the law is on my side.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Were costs awarded against the plaintiff, do you know?
> What does it end up costing the state in staffing courts and all the other stuff which is involved in bringing a case to this point?
> Someone has to pay when a solicitor (and probably later a barrister) tells a twit that they have a case worth taking. Her solicitor should be questioned to see what advice the client received.


This is now the law in Australia.  A lawyer can no longer bring an action unless that lawyer is willing to sign a form stating that the case is reasonable.  If it is later found that the case was frivolous the lawyer can be held responsible for costs.
Many failed plaintiffs are facing significant legal bills to cover the cost and inconvenience that their failed suit caused.
This is a two edged sword.
Loser pays.

.,,


----------



## Benjy

maxiogee said:


> Were costs awarded against the plaintiff, do you know?
> What does it end up costing the state in staffing courts and all the other stuff which is involved in bringing a case to this point?
> Someone has to pay when a solicitor (and probably later a barrister) tells a twit that they have a case worth taking. Her solicitor should be questioned to see what advice the client received.



Not mentioned in any of the articles that I can find in the UK press. Bit odd really.


----------



## french4beth

. said:


> This is now the law in Australia. A lawyer can no longer bring an action unless that lawyer is willing to sign a form stating that the case is reasonable. If it is later found that the case was frivolous the lawyer can be held responsible for costs.
> Many failed plaintiffs are facing significant legal bills to cover the cost and inconvenience that their failed suit caused.
> This is a two edged sword.
> Loser pays.


In the US, there are sanctions against "frivolous lawsuits".

I found some more outrageous lawsuits at www.duhaime.org located here . Just one example:





> A drunk driver was speeding, careened passed detour signs and crashed. He sued the engineering firm that designed the road, the contractor, four subcontractors and state highway department property which owned both sides of the road. Five years later, all of the defendants settled for $35,000. The engineering firm was swamped with over $200,000 in legal costs. (Source: ATRA)


----------



## cuchuflete

xarruc said:
			
		

> These plaintiffs that become overnight millionaires due to a little misfortune do so at our expense.


That's a nice broad generality with no facts behind it.

Are there some frivolous lawsuits?  In all probability there are some.
Does this mean that most suits for compensatory and punitive damages are frivolous, or unwarranted, or unreasonable?  No.


I'll spell that slowly:  N....O.


I've heard of a few odd cases that leave me scratching my head in disbelief.  I know of quite a few more
in which private individuals, medical practitioners, corporate entities, and municipalities behaved in blatantly negligent ways, resulting in serious injuries to plaintiffs.

Does it make sense to tighten up the laws to reduce or eliminate frivolous lawsuits?  Sure.
Does this mean denying the right to sue to those who have suffered real injuries?  No!


The hysteria in the first post is troubling.  If liability suits and the laws that govern them need fine tuning, 
then it should be possible to say so, without broadly condemning the entire legal process, and blaming lawyers and those who have suffered injuries at the same time.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> The hysteria in the first post is troubling.


Hysteria is no big deal. Any literate person can cut straight through hysteria even if they're operating with one eye tyed behind their back and there is a slew of gnats gnatting their 'nads.
What is most troubling is the hidden agenda or, to use the modern war-speak, the embedded assumptions bolstered by disingenuosness and empty rhetoric based on extrapolations of claim and rebuttal. It is enough to make a bloke. (sic)

If a lawyer wants to slag off at plaintiffs that shylock should at least have the front to do it in the open.
If there is a case for increasing the increasing rate of the acceleration of the accumulation of capital by multinational insurance companies then the multinational insurance companies shouldn't have to operate by subterfuge and trickery.
Truth needs no lawyers to filter it.
Shakespeare had firm opinions about how to deal with lawyers at first blush and who am I to try to rewrite the classics.

.,,


----------



## french4beth

. said:


> Hysteria is no big deal. Any literate person can cut straight through hysteria even if they're operating with one eye tyed behind their back and there is a slew of gnats gnatting their 'nads.  What is most troubling is the hidden agenda or, to use the modern war-speak, the embedded assumptions bolstered by disingenuosness and empty rhetoric based on extrapolations of claim and rebuttal. It is enough to make a bloke. (sic) *Well said!*
> 
> If a lawyer wants to slag off at plaintiffs that shylock should at least have the front to do it in the open. *Absolutely*!
> If there is a case for increasing the increasing rate of the acceleration of the accumulation of capital by multinational insurance companies then the multinational insurance companies shouldn't have to operate by subterfuge and trickery. *Couldn't agree more (and I've worked in the insurance industry for many moons now - the good ones don't need to be sleazy, such as my employer).*
> Truth needs no lawyers to filter it. *Unfortunately, truth doesn't always prevail - more often than not, the person with the most expensive attorney prevails - after all, how many rich criminal millionaires are sitting on death row in the US? None, that I know of, or at least very few.*
> Shakespeare had firm opinions about how to deal with lawyers at first blush and who am I to try to rewrite the classics. *I beg to differ - I know some very fine lawyers - as with any profession, there are good apples & bad apples. And you really can't blame the lawyers - it's the judges who agree to hear the cases (of course, most of them are lawyers...).*


----------



## xarruc

> If a bloke punched you in the face and broke your nose would you be happy for him to pay your doctor's bills and get on with his life or would you feel that some additional form of censure should be placed upon him to deter future actions and to *help you to deal with the headaches and depridations of a broken nose?*


 
As much sympathy as I may have for genuine victims, I don't feel that awarding an extremely large sum of money is necesarily a good way to make amends.

I also believe that it has a detrimental effect on society because it produces an overcautionsess that can sour things once enjoyed. An example of this is the increased awareness that schools risk litigation over minor injuries sustained, for example, in the rough-and-tumble that most kids enjoy. In fact some schools have banned tag. I don't want to get into a debate over tag, I appreciate that schools have to be responsible for children in their care and at times draconian measures are required.

It has a detrimental effect on our public systems. Every time a 6 figure pay out is made by a school, a hospital or a public transport company, then that organisation's ability to provide its service is diminished. Of course in the long term the organisation's budget, and consequently our taxes, rise to equilibriate. Of course I appreciate the necessity for public organisations to be accountable for their actions, as any private company.

Surely I am not the only one to see the nonsense of a system where a patient suing a hospital that couldn't afford to treat him as well as he expected takes yet more money out of the struggling hospital?


As said before, I certainly see that refunding financial loss occurred by another's unreasonable actions is a good, healthy and just thing to do.

I also see that financial punishment may be fitting in some circumstances. I would prefer to see that money return to the society than to an individual. There was one case I read about recently in The States where the widow of a smoker was awarded an astronomical sum (10s of millions). (I think it was going hrough some apeals process when I read about it). If the courts decide that this is a correct punishment for the tobacco firms then fine, but is 40 million, or even one million going to bring back her husband? Was she out of pocket by even 100,000? She has my sympathy, but I cannot put a price on her grief.If she had just 1% of the money originally awarded she would be rich. That 10 million or so would go a very long way in providing better care for cancer sufferers, or grief counselling for the public.

The link I provided was the first result of a google search "burglar compensation" or suchlike. The frequency of such stories in the British press is one to two a day. I am aware that in Spain such stories are more likely a brief footnote once a week. Perhaps in other parts of the world the stories are not reported.

Originally Posted by *xarruc* 
These plaintiffs that become overnight millionaires due to a little misfortune do so at our expense.




> That's a nice broad generality with no facts behind it.



Money doesn't grow on trees. As Benjy has said, his insurance premiums have risen as a result of compensation culture. Compensation costs are passed on to society one way or another. Where do you think the money comes from?



> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> 
> 
> The hysteria in the first post is troubling.


 
Please identify this hysteria. 

If you are reffering to the opening comment - it was not a hysterical scream, rather just loud start to an otherwise non hysterical post.



> Are there some frivolous lawsuits? In all probability there are some.


 
As mentioned in the first post, by way of the definition of "compensation culture" this thread is essentially about the effect of frivolous lawsuits very high pay-outs on your culture. I know we have gone off on one about the evils of alcohol, and about the suitability of the system in general.



> Does this mean denying the right to sue to those who have suffered real injuries? No!


This has never been brought up. No one in this thread has said that someone shouldn't have the right to sue, nor that people should be compensated for financial loss negligently caused by a third party.



> the very possibility of being sued as a very serious threat even if I knew for sure that the law is on my side.


 
I think ths is the crux of the problem. In my opinion the high damages can make minor mistakes much more costly than they ought. This in turn makes those minor mistakes into major mistakes and erstwhile major mistakes are committed and ignore.


----------



## .   1

xarruc said:


> I also see that financial punishment may be fitting in some circumstances. I would prefer to see that money return to the society than to an individual. There was one case I read about recently in The States where the widow of a smoker was awarded an astronomical sum (10s of millions). (I think it was going hrough some apeals process when I read about it). If the courts decide that this is a correct punishment for the tobacco firms then fine, but is 40 million, or even one million going to bring back her husband? Was she out of pocket by even 100,000? She has my sympathy, but I cannot put a price on her grief.If she had just 1% of the money originally awarded she would be rich. That 10 million or so would go a very long way in providing better care for cancer sufferers, or grief counselling for the public.


Big Tobacco (Coco-Cola-Amatyl) has gouged billions and billions of dollars out of the consumer each year since started out as British Tobbaco.
Big Tobbaco has gleefully assisted in the suicide of millions of people all around the world every year for too many years.
For too many years Big Tobacco pushed it's drug with the full knowledge that the drug is a killer.
Big Tobacco is still trying to get our kids hooked on their insidious drug that has no benefit to the consumer and kills more gruesomely and in infinitely vaster numbers than all the wars in history.
Big Tobacco had treated our society with utter contempt for generations and has murdered millions and milions and millions of people.
The judicial fraternity has attempted to curtail Big Tobacco for decades with little or no effect but now they have worked out a way. Not all judges are corrupt.
The Judiciary looks as though it is going to crush Big Tobacco and make the business of murdering babies before they are born less fun.

If you are seeking sympathy for Big Business you had best cast your net further than purveyors of filth and death.
What next? Sorrow for the falling profits of land mine manufacturers because all of their potential victims have already lost legs and Big Bombness has to wait for the next generation of targets to germinate?

We are not living in a compensation culture.
Tag has not been banned in schools. That's silly. Maybe some very violent games have been curtailed. Maybe kids are not encouraged to climb on metal frames suspended over rocks and dirt to cushion their fall.

Some stupid people make some stupid decisions and some stupid people jump on some of these stupid decisions to try to push a stupid agenda but non stupid people who can remember the word read before the word being read are aware of this twisted perception and are nothing more than irritated by such stupidity.

(sic)
There their they're here for all to see!!


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> Tag has not been banned in schools. That's silly. Maybe some very violent games have been curtailed. Maybe kids are not encouraged to climb on metal frames suspended over rocks and dirt to cushion their fall.



It sure has!

The world is bigger than "Brakistan"

*School Says Game of Tag Is Out*
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55836,00.html

*Game of tag banned on playground*
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48701


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> It sure has!


And it most surely hasn't in the other 99.9999999% of schools not quoted in your selective googling.



Brioche said:


> The world is bigger than "Brakistan"


I don't give a Flying Valenda about "Brakistan"'s policy toward pesronal liability.
Please explain, where is "Brakistan"?



Brioche said:


> *School Says Game of Tag Is Out*
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55836,00.html


 My reading of this link indicates that the decision was taken because of potential damage to kids' self esteem if they didn't win! Banned from playing a geme because not everybody can win. How very wonderful for their self esteem. If at first you don't succeed quit and go running to an authority figure. A wonderful way to breed co-dependent robots to flip burgers.



Brioche said:


> *Game of tag banned on playground*
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48701


 What was that quote from the moaner there?


*Dodge ball *is out. Too aggressive. 
*Ropes courses *are out. Too much liability. 
And don't even think about proposing a *gun club at your child's school *these days. 

I may be a little slow on the uptake but I recognise a sinister pattern emerging there.
I have seen dodge ball and I agree that it is too dangerous.
What the hell does a person think that a school needs rope courses and a gun club??

It is apparent that the game of tag that I played as a child is not the game of tag that is being discussed here.
The tag that I played was a game that had no winner and the loser was only temporary because you were only in until you managed to touch someone else.
Being fast was a slight advantage but the smarter kids were more successful.

Note!
In the days of google it will be possible to find an exception to every situation. You have convinced me. Tag has been banned, in a vanishingly small, statistically insignificant number of schools, and in both cases the ban is the subject of an appeals process and in at least one case there appears to be the impression of a heavy trigger finger of The National Rifle Association involved.
Nevertheless you are right.
I stand corrected.

Tag has been banned.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Xarruc said:
			
		

> Please identify this hysteria.



In addition to hysteria, I'll point out some distortions, weak logic, and moralizing:





> I think it is undeniable that compensation culture* has changed modern society in many countries.


Do you, now?  I deny it.  I have seen no visible change to society in the US over the past half century as
a result of the occasional lawsuit for negligence or product liability.  I have seen that institutions and
some business entities have realized, in small but meaningful ways, that it is cheaper in the long run to
deliver what they advertise, and to test products before putting them up for sale.  If by a change in modern society you refer to fewer drugs like Thalidomide being marketed before proper testing, I'll grant that the
pharmaceutical industry appears more careful today than some decades ago.  I suppose you might twist your mind into a pretzel shape and call that a visible change in modern society.  





> The main 'culprit' was no-win-no-fee-lawers who made anyone with the time to waste having a go.


 That is utter and complete nonsense.  Lawyers are generally not uneducated or stupid.  Unless they have strong grounds for believing that a case has legal merit, they do not take it on, especially on a contingent fee basis, where they are only paid if they win a damages award for their client.   

Do kindly remember when you are tarring and feathering members of the legal profession that for every case
you don't like, there is apt to be a lawyer on each side of the dispute.  Would you have us believe that the
winning lawyers are consistently more competent than those for the parties being sued?  If not, you may have
to swallow the fact that at time the cases have merit.  

I find your sweeping generalizations hysterical at best.  The " 'culprit' " in a reasonable argument is
often exaggeration. Beware of gentle breezes and small facts that knock such things over.





> The compensation is *rarely* confined to medical and other costs caused by another,


Where are the facts to support this bold assertion?  Of all the product liability cases and negligence cases
in the country of your choice, would you please tell us-

1)  What % of these cases ever went to trial?

2) What % of these cases were won by plaintiffs?

3) Of the cases that went to trial, and were won by plaintiffs, what % had punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, awarded?

Please cite your sources, as we may not wish to take your word for whatever answers you provide, if any.





> ...but extends to awarding money for dubious "stress" and in cases,* just to punish the company at fault.*


 Is the company at fault never due any punishment?  Have a look at the much ballyhoed McDonald's coffee burn case.  The company was well aware that the temperature of its product had caused
burns before, and had settled a number of damage claims arising from this, but refused to make any adjustment to its business practices.  It served its product at a temperature well higher than any of its major competitors.  Without a punitive damage ruling, do you expect it would have done anything different?
If so, what logic would you use to justify such rosey expectations?  

Why do you assume that a company that is punished is an innocent victim of a frivolous claim?  Does it not occur to you that some companies have behaved in a negligent manner?  

Have you ever read of a hospital being sued by a patient after a surgeon sewed him or her up, leaving medical instruments not on the table, but inside the patient?  Might punitive damages lead such an institution to revise its quality control practices for the benefit of all patients?   That would be a very nice societal change, wouldn't you agree?






> The punitive side of the damages don't go to a charity bu to the individual.


  Ho hum.  The point of punitive damages is to change the behavior of the transgressor.  It is financial "pain" inflicted on a wrongdoer.  If your complaint is really about who gets the proceeds of punitive damages awards, then the rest of your statements are dramatic, deceptive, and not germane.   



> If your daughter dies tragically you may well get more money than you could ever spend.


 I expect that you are stridently in opposition to lotteries for the same reason.  What if the recipient of a large settlement chooses to give much or all of it to charity?  Is that any of your concern?  Do you know if this happens?  If it does, or if it doesn't, what does that have to do with the fundamental point of laws allowing for punitive damages?  Do you happen to know why such laws were enacted?



> It's very easy to assume that it is a harmless thing that punishes those big nasty corporations and eases the pain of the victims, but the truth is that we all pay for it - *the costs of protection against idiots* is passed on to us, as higher prices or taxes,


  Shall we assume that you are speaking of the idiots who market defective products?  There are such idiots, whether it pleases you to acknowledge this or not.  It is sometimes proven in courts of law that companies knowingly sell products which are unsafe.  Yes, we all do 
pay for that.


----------



## .   1

xarruc said:


> It's very easy to assume that it is a harmless thing that punishes those big nasty corporations and eases the pain of the victims, but the truth is that we all pay for it - the costs of protection against idiots is passed on to us, as higher prices or taxes, the costs of punitive damages is also passed on.


Which idiots are your referring to?
The idiots injured by unsafe fire escapes?
The idiots with broken backs because of poorly designed lifting equipment?
The idiots with asbestosis from working in a mine with a wet hanky for protection?
The idiots with destroyed nervous systems after working in the chemical industry with a wet hanky and a pair of plastic eye shields for protection?
The idiots who welded their eyes shut using oxy acetyline torches with a wet hanky and plastic eye shields for protection.

Idiot is a hell of a hysterical canard to be petarding.



xarruc said:


> People no longer have to take responsibility for themselves, and what's worse, cynically manipulate the truth for financial gain (the latest is forcing people (cars) into the back of you).


Are you saying that people are generally of the attitude that they don't really care if they are permenantly and painfully crippled because they might win a fat pay-off?? Are you serious?? What idiot would think that way?



xarruc said:


> Organisations take draconian action to protect themselves from litigation. Kid's mothers (or fathers) can no longer bake cakes for the kids to share with friends on their Birthday at school. (I might not be hygenic).


Do you have any examples of this or is this a purely anecdotal example? Some people just can't cook. What is the teacher going to say to you if you bring in one bicarbonate of soda cake? You would be insulted if you were told that you just can't cook so maybe you were fobbed off.

This is not so much hysterical or hysterical as it is hysterical.

The Collins dictionary;
*hysterical* _adj_ *1* of or suggesting hysteria: _hysterical cries_. *2* suffering from hysteria. *3* _Informal, _wildly funny.





xarruc said:


> Burglars can sue if they are injured during a buglary.


Please explain.
Could you give examples (other than intentionally set 'man traps' which are illegal) of burglars successfully suing a victim.
Where did the burglar find a shyster to file the nonsense claim?

.,,


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> I don't give a Flying Valenda about "Brakistan"'s policy toward pesronal liability.
> 
> Please explain, where is "Brakistan"?
> 
> .,,




*Brak*istan is the land where Telmo Languiller can give character evidence for a drug dealer and not be sacked by the Premier, Mr *Brack*s


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> *Brak*istan is the land where Telmo Languiller can give character evidence for a drug dealer and not be sacked by the Premier, Mr *Brack*s


Well now, that's just hillarious.  How did I not get that brilliant joke?  That must have taken a team of monkeys at least 3 nanoseconds to write.  Cute.

I have to assume that you don't care much for the state in which I live.  That is entirely your prerogerative.  The fortunate thing is that I don't have to care much for your deeply thought out opinion on the matter.

Thanks mate. 

.,,


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> In addition to hysteria, I'll point out some distortions, weak logic, and moralizingo you, now?


You were close but no cigar. 
This shows the value of dictionaries and a collaborative approach to a problem.
Cuchu suggested hysteria and the Collins dictionary agreed but it had this to add.

*hysteron proteron* _n _*1* L_ogic_. a fallacious argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed as a premise. *2* _Rhetoric._ a figure of speech in which the normal order of two sentences, clauses, etcetera is reversed: _bred and born (for born and bred). _[*C16:* from Late Latin, from Greek _husteron proteron_ the latter (placed as) former.

Therefore we have a _classic _case of the cart being put before the horse.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's play with arithmetic. Here is a parable made up from my own real life experience.

Hysterius has complained about the monetary effects of punitive damages.

Cuchufletus, once a strategy and marketing consultant to large corporations, considers the complaint, and digs into his memory.

Once upon a time there was a general aviation aircraft manufacturer--that's small planes, with just one or two engines, sold to private individuals, firms with private fleets, oil service companies in Alaska and the like. Cuchufletus was doing a project for this firm, one of the three largest in the world at that time.  He heard a very senior manager talking about the effects of liability lawsuits on the company.

C- What have the effects been?
Mgr- Well, our liability insurance premiums have gone up, so we have done two things.
C- And those two are?
Mgr- We raised our prices just a touch to cover the added insurance costs, and we are a lot more thorough in design and test than we used to be.
C- Oh!  So I guess that means the number of lawsuits will drop.
Mgr- Maybe, maybe not.  But one hell of a lot more of them are going to show, definitively, that pilot error, and not product defect, was the cause of a crash.
​Arithmetic.  Here we go!

Cost increases for buyers of airplanes.
Safer products.
Fewer injuries and deaths for pilots and passengers, and that means large cost
savings for medical and burial expenses for the families of pilots and passengers.
Over time, as a result of better product safety records, lower liability insurance premiums
for aircraft manufacturers.

Do your own addition and subtraction.


Societal change?  More responsible behavior by a manufacturing industry, resulting in a short-term
cost increase for a few wealthy individuals and a small number of corporate customers, together with better, safer products.   

I think that's a good thing.

A few costly lawsuits caused some builders of products to give more attention to product safety.
Smack 'em in the belly with a wet fish to get their attention, and lots of people start doing the right thing.


----------



## .   1

That looks like a real world model.
Our most valuable resource is us and we live next door to each other.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Have you ever read the directions of use for a "simple", everyday appliance and felt like laughing? Have you ever read the likes of "do not put your cat on the oven to dry"? (and this is one of those I've read myself). How do you think they end up there? 

In general I am not against compensations and all. I couldn't be since that would be illogical to begin with. However, since I do know cases (dad and brother are both lawyers) where ridiculous court decisions have been made, even here in Greece where cases such as the cat would have the Court in stitches before it was thrown out (or, in other words, the compensation frenzy is far from being a reality), I have to say that I detest scams.

I also detest the idea of "it's not my fault, let's find someone to blame". It doesn't appear only in litigations. It is a general trend if I'm allowed to generalise a bit.

Now, the party thing: How on earth are you going to establish that the party-thrower knew it? True, a roaring drunk guy would probably call attention to himself (herself). How about a quite one though like me? I have gotten drunk quite a few times in the past and hardly anyone notices. You CAN'T notice it unless I go overboard with this.

The whole discussion has reminded me of an ex-boyfriend (fellow mods moderate if necessary) who was concerned that, braking up with me would cause me to go get drunk and then maybe I wouldn't be careful when crossing the street and a car would hit me (yes he did have an awfully big idea about himself). My reaction was to burst out laughing and explain to him that a) (irrelevant to the matter) I wouldn't and b) it would be ME who would get drunk so it would be ME who would be responsible.
Yes, I agree about peer pressure and all, but it is going a bit far to put the blame on the peers and not the person if you know what I mean.
Secondly, let us suppose what he described had happened. Who should I sue? Him for bringing me down so bad that I took to the bottle for the night? The bar in general or the bartender in particular from whom I ordered e.g. a bottle of wine which I chugalugged in my effort to numb my aching heart? The other people in the bar who actually, saw me trying to drink myself to oblivion? All of the above? None of the above?
I would probably just sue myself for being a complete and total idiot if you ask me.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Mgr- Maybe, maybe not.  But one hell of a lot more of them are going to show, definitively, that pilot error, and not product defect, was the cause of a crash.



Pilot error is regularly thrown out to the media as the most likely cause of error when a spokesperson for an airline or a manufacturer is interviewed following a fatal crash - and generally when the pilot involved has died.

But surprisingly, it seems that it is not so often pilot error is found to have been at fault when the investigation results are published, generally many years later.

"Pilot error" is a 'reason' which is advanced so as to allay any public fears about flying and so as not to cause a drop in revenue to either the airline or the manufacturer.


----------



## CrazyArcher

While I think it's perfectly logical to be compensated for the damage caused by product's defects (as long as it is used according to manufacturer's specifications), all those cases like the woman who wanted to try her poodle in a microwave show that there's something wrong with the society. If I were the judge, I would laugh and ask for psychiatric check, if she really wants it, because a person must be insane to do stuff like that. Obviously, I see no reason she would get any compensation. 
As for the party-host-responsible-for-drunks thing, I think that everyone should be reponsible for himself. The host can't be blamed if others don't have normal drinking culture. Of course, if people see a drunk person intending to drive, it's their moral duty to stop him, but not a legal one.

@Maxiogee: statistically (>70%), pilot's error is the main cause of accidents, both minor and fatal, so no wonder that this version is proposed at teh beginning of investigation. It's true that sometimes the media tends to put too much stress on it, but anyway it's the most likely cause. I don't try to say that the airline isn't responsible in case of pilot's error, because the pilot is an employee of the airline and represents it, but you seem to trust the man who operates the machine more than the machine itself.


----------

