Originally posted by inimalist
yes, blaming the victim is the first step
It's hard for me to tell where you're coming from with that statement. At first, I would think it was sarcasm, but, reading your further comments later in the thread, I'm not so sure.
Anywho, yes, I don't think America allows for enough blame to be placed on the idiots...wait...I mean "victim." 😄
If you're being sarcastic, where do you draw the line between willful negligence of the "plaintiff" and hazardous products/actions?
Anyway, this next part is not directly at you, but to the general audience.
Why couldn't the old lady sue her grandson for "negligence." Surely her grandson was aware of how physically debilitated her shaky hands were. He neglected to intervene before his stubborn old grandmother injured herself really badly. As fact, the counter had a warning on it about the contents being hot. Not warm, but hot. So, shouldn't the grandson be at the majority fault here?
Ahhh, but you see, no one thinks about things like this. Instead, it HAS to be the corporation that the person got the "assaulting" product from, not the person that used that product to injure themselves, the friends and family that allowed the "victim" to injure themselves, nor the "innocent" witnesses observing the accident with the product unfold. It absolutely HAS to be the organization's, that made and/or distributed the product, fault: Despite warnings on the product.
Let's put this into perspective on what this lady did: she held her hand on rapidly spinning lawnmower blades for 30+ seconds while her grandson sat next to her, watching her do it; despite the warning on the lawnmower that says "caution, spinning blades will cut your friggin' hands off." What makes my comparison even less severe than the actual scenario: the container she was holding, despite preventing most of the heat transferring to her hand, could quite easily convey to her that the contents were "hot!" I'd have to amend my comparisons to something like: she held a stick up to the blades and watched the blades devour the stick like it was nothing before she held her hands up to the blades, mangling them. But, it's the manufacturer of the lawn mower because they didn't:
1. Put, in larger text, that the lawn mower could chop your hands up.
2. The blades spun too fast, despite customers requesting that the blades spin that fast.
3. She held her hands in the blades 30+ seconds while her grandson just looked at her.
Damn...still thinking about it, my comparison STILL doesn't capture the true effect of this situation. To really capture it, I'd have to come up with something silly that caused her hands to get mangled faster, because her wearing sweat pants exacerbated the situation. Maybe she sharpened the blades right before sticking her hands in there?
Before anyone thinks about objecting to my comparison by saying something like, "Coffee is different than lawnmower blades because the blades are meant to cut grass, not mangle hands." Or something along those lines. My response: Coffee is meant to be drunk not spilled in a car all over your lap. A lawnmower is meant to cut grass, not hands. A cup holder is where you would expect to take the lid off. The yard is where you'd expect to find grass to cut. Not taking the lid off in your lap when you're a shaky old fart: not trying to play with the blades.
Hope I didn't lose anyone with the parallels, but I think you guys get the point.
But, back to square 1: Why DIDN'T the old lady go after her grandson for his negligence? (Which, its quite obvious that he WAS negligent, no denying that.) She should have. Other than the old lady, he is most at fault, here. Simple: our "society" has it in their mind that they are entitled to something whenever they ****-up. The go after the person or entity most able to fulfill that entitlement need that they have been conditioned to demand.
If the tort "rules" were setup to where a person was made more liable for their actions, we might be able to curb this "entitlement age" that we have been in for the past few decades. I like the idea of making hefty legal costs up to the person that brings up the charges, but, first, we've got to stop awarding cases to the plaintiffs for silly things like the old lady situation. I think I placed a percentage of liability on McDonald's in this case already, but I forgot what I said. McDonald's, due to keeping their coffee above market average: let's just say 10%. McDonald's pays 10% of her medical bills and sends a "get better" card and she pays for the rest including 90% of her own legal costs. 😐
Also, in the case of the dude was forced to open his hand: it's really hard for me to decide which way that should have gone. Did the officer break fingers or tear skin/nails when he forced the hand open? If he did, the dude should sue the city for the medical costs. However, if the drugs are illegal, depending upon the municipality (damn, I say that a lot), the cop would be in complete right to force the hand open. Most places here in Oklahoma allows the police officer to conduct a search with reasonable cause, without a warrant. It HAS to be a pretty damned good reason, though such as, suspecting some pothead of holding onto a small bag of weed during a routine traffic stop. However, this is where my "other" side disagrees: weed should NOT be illegal to ****in' begin with! When vaped, it's safer than friggin' aspirin, for cryin' out-loud. I digress: I was reading where most people become impaired enough from weed to make them at the levels a little above the maximum legal level of blood alcohol levels. So, damn, it's hard to say. I'd like to see a really good study done: completely objective. I'm almost positive the outcomes of those dozen or so tests had "vested interests" in the outcomes...you know, similar to the US suppressing a study about the toxicity of a joint compared to a cigarette that showed the cigarette to be more toxic.
Anyway, tort reform. Yeah. Awesome. We need it in the US.