It's all going down the plughole

[spacesailor]

Not just the ' white-feller ' ,

But also the mobs head of ?, whatever they call themselves. 

I was taken to a ' village ' or aboriginal settlement, were the ' white fella ' doing repairs had to " please the head man ',

( village elder ) just to gain access to the repair job. 

Not going there again. Beautiful houses, trashed , just because  they,r " white-fellers " houses.

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, onetrack said:

The greatest restrictions that developed in our lifetimes has been the overwhelming intrusion of red tape and bureaucracy and regulations into every single facet of our lives and businesses - mostly all driven by lawyers and lawsuits.

While I agree that regulations and rules are necessary for the functioning of a safe and civil society, it has got to the point where the level of rules and regulations has become overwhelming, and it needs to be pared back to more realistic levels.

Yeah- true - but they keep me in a job...

 

[facthunter]

Just HOW would you prevent a lawyer taking a case  on behalf of a client, where money could be extracted from someone allegedly doing something wrong and causing loss or injury?  Nev

[spacesailor]

facthunter

See NZ law , about suing a an incompetent employer.

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

I'm aware of their approach to that. It's a practical way but to the Yanks it would deny THEM their rights to sue for large amounts. Lawyers there nearly finished off the lighter end of the Aviation Industry. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Just HOW would you prevent a lawyer taking a case  on behalf of a client, where money could be extracted from someone allegedly doing something wrong and causing loss or injury?  Nev

I may have missed a subtlety, but if someone is alleged to have done something wrong, either by action or inaction when they have an obligation to take an action, why would it not be right that a lawyer takes on the case, asses the probable merit of the case and if in law, there may be a remedy, does not seek to have the alleged wrongdoing proven and have the wrongdoer pay for (either through money or specific performance) to right the wrong? The basic principle is simple - liability = there is a duty of care, there is a breach of that duty of care, it causes harm and the harm must not be too remote from the cause/action/inaction.

 

However, life isn't simple, and in many cases, there will be all sorts of factors to consider and this is where the skill of a good lawyer will come in.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Because the Government has taken your rights away !.

When you can point out a dangerous item, & get laughed at by the perpetrators. 

I wonder if they feel any remorse for Not taking remedial action to stop ANOTHER hospitalization. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

I can recall when public events were held left, right, and centre, and no-one ever talked about liabilities to the public, or lawsuits. Then, after a few high profile, successful PL cases, where the participants went for the insurance companies (as they always do), and the payouts were in the millions - it became nearly impossible to get PL insurance for the average public event - because insurance premiums went through the roof, and made it impossible for any small community group to even run a cake stall, without incurring massive PL insurance costs.

 

I don't know where it all started to go wrong, but I believe it was when Australia started to follow the American model of lawyering, with the accent on gaining access to the billions held by insurance companies, and who have turned out to be an easy target.

[old man emu]

Insurance companies are depicted as being like bookies, you place your bet and takes your chances. If what you bet on happens (your house burns down) the bookie pays you from his money. If your house does not burn down, the bookie keeps your wager. 

 

But it's not completely like that. Insurance is a wager, but instead of the individual putting down a $100 bet, 100 people syndicate and each puts in $1. The only difference is that if the event happens to only one person, that person gets the whole pot, not a one hundredth share. However, if the event happens to more than one person, the insurance company has to pay out the same amount to every one of them. So the insurance company has to accumulate the funds to meet that pay out.

 

Consider the past five years. We had a big drought for about three or four of them. During those years people paid insurance premiums to bet that their house would get flooded. They didn't, so the insurance companies retained that money and built up their treasuries. However, then there were big bushfires, so the insurance companies had to dip into their treasuries to settle their bets. Then came the floods, but there were no fire payouts. And in those happy years of gentle rains and damp forests, the insurance companies keep the lot, held in reserve for the next cyclone.

 

"But what about the fine print?" It's your responsibility to "study the form". You wouldn't bet on a cart horse in the Melbourne Cup, unless your bet was that the cart horse would come last. So it is incumbent on you to understand the bet you are making with the insurance company.  Too many people enter into insurance contracts the same way as they buy milk. There is a wide variety of products called "cow's milk". How many of us read the product disclosure statement (nutritional information) on the container of milk before buying the one best suited to our health or taste needs? Likewise, most people enter into an insurance contract not understanding what is covered and what is not covered in the bet. As in all things, caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon there could be a way out, and that is if you could enter into an agreement to NOT sue.

There was a case where a tandem parachute passenger got injured. Despite signing an agreement to not sue, he did just that and won in a lower court. The case was appealed ( as a GFA member, I paid my share, and the judgement came down against the passenger.

If this had not been the case, there could not be any more passenger flights in gliders, or parachutes or lots of similar things.

 

Now the agreement not to sue needs to be carefully decided. In the case of a parachute passenger, one judge said that the risk was obvious and the need was not.

I reckon attendance at some events, like motor racing, fall into the category of the risk being obvious and the need to go there zero. So I would enable the event to proceed with all attendees agreeing that they were doing so at their own risk.

If you don't like this, you could insure yourself. I am amazed at how many people believe in insurance.

[octave]

I guess the intricacies of risk are not necessarily obvious.  Should the passengers who boarded the 737 Max aircraft have been aware that there could be a software or design fault?   To use commercial aviation as an example, how do we keep airline travel relatively safe.  I can see 4 ways.

 

1) we rely on the ethics and good will of the company to do the best thing. (not particularly reassuring)

2) we could have a buyer beware situation where an airline company or manufacturer wants to build a safe product because adverse events will lead to less customers (could be costly in lives and make choosing an airline arduous.)

 

which leaves

 

3) Red tape (rules and regs)

4)  Litigation  (we should test that aircraft software adequately in order not to be sued or fined)

 

 

[facthunter]

Well It's cost Boeing their reputation and a lot of sales and other costs. I have no doubt they should be liable for passengers  live etc. Maybe the FAA also. The story is well covered already. Nev

[old man emu]

Suing for damages resulting from suffering of an injury is one of the things called a "tort". 

 

When we are discussing this, we are discussing the area of Negligence. Negligence arises when a person does not exercise ‘reasonable care and skill’ whilst conducting their duty of care obligations. A Negligence tort hangs on two hooks: 1) Duty of care, and 2) ‘reasonable care and skill’.

 

Firstly, the plaintiff must first prove that ‘a duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the negligent person or party’. If I allow you to travel in my car, or plane then I have a duty to do my utmost to ensure that you don't get hurt, or sick while doing those things. That's plain common decency. 

 

Secondly, once the passenger has established that I owe a duty of care to them by the defendant, the defendant must show that I breached that duty of care. I must make sure that whilst carrying out the journey that I have taken care that the vehicle is safe to use, according to the things a driver should know about the operation of a vehicle. Not the intricacies of the hydraulic braking system, but what is normal performance for that system - not textbook knowledge, but experience. While operating the vehicle, I need to use a level of skill equal to other operators who have had the same exposure to the particular driving environment.

 

If a passenger is too ignorant to accept that basically, sh!t happens with any manmade product then they can't cry "foul" when something happens that is beyond the ability of the operator to prevent. 

[spacesailor]

Duty of care.

When a person is commissioned to provide a " safely   " guard. 

And gets advice by the recipient, as to what is required. BUT

make guard to his own whim, without any locks on the guards. 

Has he fullfilled his obligation? .   

( yes it,s personal  ).

spacesailor

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Has he fullfilled his obligation? .

Let's see.

1.  commissioned to provide a " safely" (safety?) guard.

What danger is the guard protecting against? That will determine the final product and its functioning. How detailed is the specification in the commission? 

2. gets advice by the recipient. It depends on what you mean by "advice". Is the giver of the advice more qualified than the person carrying out the commission? Is it the correct advice?

3. as to what is required. That's the commission brief. The commissioner should have done the research and prepared design details.

4. make guard to his own whim, sometimes there is more than one way to skin a cat.

5. without any locks on the guards depends on the need for locks. Was there some Regulation that required locks?

5. Has he fullfilled his obligation?  If the product is not suitable for the application, the obligation was not fulfilled. That's not "Negligence", that's Breach of Contract. Still actionable, but not in the way that this conversation was dealing with Negligence.

 

[facthunter]

"Wilful negligence is even worse. Like you know it's a crap show but it's good enough for you because you save money and effort.   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

That's the law,OME . But here is my question....  would you choose a "protected" parachute experience at $400 over a  "your own risk" similar thing at $100?

Personally, I would say that a smart person would quietly check out the whole operation and, if all was well, pay the $100. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Bruce Tuncks

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

That's the law,OME . But here is my question....  would you choose a "protected" parachute experience at $400 over a  "your own risk" similar thing at $100?

Personally, I would say that a smart person would quietly check out the whole operation and, if all was well, pay the $100. 

Checking out the whole operation is what is called Risk Assessment. You do the assessment and then plan a course of action. Even the chicken did a risk assessment before crossing the road.

[Marty_d]

Not much risk assessment went on with my wife's and my one and only parachute experience.

 

We were in Queenstown, NZ, on our honeymoon.  After a pub lunch we were talking about what we could do that arvo... noticed a skydiving brochure and off we went.

Just a word of advice - if you're going to jump out of a plane at 12,000ft strapped to a Kiwi, don't have a big pub lunch first.  It did stay down, but it made the experience a bit less comfortable!

Edited September 5, 2022 by Marty_d

[facthunter]

Dropped a few chutists out but never had the desire to follow them...   Nev

[Yenn]

I cannot understand the desire to do a tandem parachute jump, in the same way I Can't understand the desire to bungy jump. In both cases you are just offering up your life to somebody who may or may not know what they are doing.

Some time ago I went rock climbing with a bloke who reckoned he knew what he was doing. Luckily I checked out his knot tieing and had to point out that it was not satisfactory. In a similar way I had to decline to take part in an SES exercise and when I pointed out their unsafe practice it was very quickly changed, but it was a case of the experts making mistakes and the bloke who was supposed to be learning being more awake.

[spacesailor]

yen 

The same thing happened to me , I Was going to be the " patient  " in a caving mishap,  but didn,t.

The replacement  ended up ' trapped ' a long way above the floor , as well as a long way underground .

Hours hanging from the ' rescue ' stretcher , the weight of it , hanging from the ' patient ' & a full blown rescue by three " S E S " teams to get the volunteer  patient out of the cave .

WOMBAT TRAINING COURSE 

GEE , am I a lucky sod !.

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

See, like I told the grandson, you guys have learned when to be careful. I have turned down a flight in a helicopter and 2 aerobatic flights in 60 y/o planes, plus a flight in a Grunau baby glider.

Those old planes are still flying, so I was wrong. But a 60 y/o metal  mainspar of unknown history could be so corroded that it might have failed.

 

 

[facthunter]

I've turned down flights in big single piston engined warbirds that fly over populous areas and glide at 100 knots+.  Nev

[red750]

I've ridden in helicopters of all sizes, 3 seats to 32 seats.

• Hughes 269 - 3 seats (developed into the Schweitzer 300)
• Bell 47J-2 - 4 seats, countless times (Essendon - City heliport and return)
• Sikorsky S61N - 2 crew, 30 pax.

My only regret is that I never got to fly one - even as a TIF.