Subject:
|
Re: Personal Responsibility (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 May 2000 21:39:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1265 times
|
| |
|
|
James Simpson wrote in message ...
> Yes, but life is a terribly complex and complicated thing. People must • deal
> with their mistakes, but often it is not reasonable or right to make them • 100%
> responsible.
Chris (and I) have never said that the "victim" is ever 100% responsible. We
have just argued that the victim does have SOME responsibility.
Thankfully North Carolina doesn't see it this way or no one could succeed in
a law suit here. In North Carolina, if you are found to have contributory
negligence, of even 1% (and please note, I probably have details wrong
here - so there probably is something big I'm missing, if anyone is familiar
with North Carolina's law here I'd love to here an explanation of how this
really works), you can not win anything in a law suit.
> > > I have a friend who just got 2 fingers ripped off
> > > in a machine at his factory, through no real fault of his own.
> >
> > Bummer. Did he get them put back on? A friend of mine in high school
> > graduated ahead of me and became a machinist. He had a mill eat a finger • and
> > it was destroyed, so they couldn't put it back. He said that if there had • been
> > anything to put back on, they could have and probably returned function, • if not
> > sensation. I bet building with our favorite toy is harder sans two • fingers.
>
> Regarding Lego, unfortunatly, I have not made yet made a disciple out of • him.
> My friend had his fingers caught in a stretcher. All of the flesh was • pulled
> off of the bones (curiously, no bones were broken). His fingers were a • total
> loss. In the State of Texas, our legislature seems to be in the pocket of • the
> insurance industry. If a company offers worker's compensation, then said
> company is immune from civil litigation when a worker is injured. This • case
> cried out for a lawsuit: The company had received numerous complaints as to • the
> hazards of this machine, and the day after the accident, a bunch of safety
> equipment was installed. Because the law here allows companies to be • basically
> bullet-proof, the company had no economic incentive to install the safety
> equipment. Why shut down the operation briefly and install costly safety
> equipment when all you have to do is throw the injured employee a bone (no • pun
> intended) if and when an accident occurs. It was straight-up cost-benefit
> analysis.
As Chris said, this is an unfortunate result of our over regulation. I don't
think one should EVER give up the right to a law suit (even against a
government, especially against a government). Of course a properly worded
contract can block many law suits, but if it can be determined that the
"victim" signed the contract under duress, or that the contract terms are
patently unreasonable (especially contracts which remove the possibility of
exit, there are some employment contracts which essentially create a
situation of slavery for example).
I don't totally agree with Chris's feeling that it is ok for an employer to
have unsafe equipment (or at least to have such and not reasonably
compensate inured employees - remember, it is impossible to remove all risk,
and while the employee bears some risk, so does the employer). However, I
think that in a Libertopia, these types of situations almost won't exist. If
a machine is capable of being made much safer at a reasonable cost, I
believe the market will cause the employers to use those safer machines
(through many avenues, customers preferring product from the company which
treats is employees better, employees demanding sufficiently higher wages
from the unsafe company, lawsuits, etc.).
It is very scary to me that there are people who want to limit the ability
to sue. Lawsuits are the Libertarian way of regulating dangerous actions. It
is very scary to me to both be tearing down the welfare state (which is a
good thing, though I'm not sure that we're doing enough to make sure that an
environment will exist that will allow people to succeed, or the necessary
charity be provided), and also at the same time limiting the ability of
victims of dangerous products or work environments to gain compensation.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
