A
Austin Shackles
Guest
On or around Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:38:02 +0100, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get
>you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are
>absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care.
personally, I think that this sucks like an industrial grade vacuum.
Provided you supply sufficient information that the choice is "informed", I
honestly think that it should be acceptable to have a disclaimer that
actually means something.
suppose, for example, I want to go off-roading in my landy. I go to a site,
and pay for the use thereof. The site operator makes it quite plain to me
that by driving on his site I may damage either the vehicle or myself. He
does this, for example, by having a big notice, drawing attention to it and
also by reading the notice aloud, at the time when I register and pay. I
sign my name to a page which has the same info on it and accept the risk to
my vehicle and person as my responsibility, and absolving the site operator
of blame should such damage occur.
Under those conditions, why the hell should the operator be at risk? This
is part of the compensation and blame culture which sadly is rife. It all
comes down to the fact that half the world is intent on not looking where it
puts it clumsy feet, falling over some item in plain sight and then hunting
someone to blame, sue, and make a tidy bit of money from.
It's like people walking along the pavement and falling over a raised paving
stone. The paving stone is in plain view and if they watched where they put
their plates they'd not fall over it. Why should the local authority have
to cough because someone's too daft too look where they're walking?
Obviously, there are circumstances where a claim IS reasonable, too: take
the pavement, for example: suppose it looks flat and in good condition, but
in fact one slab is unsupported and tips when you stand on it, causing you
to fall. That's a situation where you could not reasonably be aware of the
risk and the authority should really be liable. In the same way, my
hypothetical off-road operator could let me onto his premises, take no steps
to find out if I had any experience, make no effort to inform me of any
risks and say "off yer go". In THOSE circumstances, he'd be negligent and
if I were damaged, I'd expect to claim from him. The difference being that
the risks were not either inherently obvious nor clearly stated.
But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people wanting
someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get
>you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are
>absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care.
personally, I think that this sucks like an industrial grade vacuum.
Provided you supply sufficient information that the choice is "informed", I
honestly think that it should be acceptable to have a disclaimer that
actually means something.
suppose, for example, I want to go off-roading in my landy. I go to a site,
and pay for the use thereof. The site operator makes it quite plain to me
that by driving on his site I may damage either the vehicle or myself. He
does this, for example, by having a big notice, drawing attention to it and
also by reading the notice aloud, at the time when I register and pay. I
sign my name to a page which has the same info on it and accept the risk to
my vehicle and person as my responsibility, and absolving the site operator
of blame should such damage occur.
Under those conditions, why the hell should the operator be at risk? This
is part of the compensation and blame culture which sadly is rife. It all
comes down to the fact that half the world is intent on not looking where it
puts it clumsy feet, falling over some item in plain sight and then hunting
someone to blame, sue, and make a tidy bit of money from.
It's like people walking along the pavement and falling over a raised paving
stone. The paving stone is in plain view and if they watched where they put
their plates they'd not fall over it. Why should the local authority have
to cough because someone's too daft too look where they're walking?
Obviously, there are circumstances where a claim IS reasonable, too: take
the pavement, for example: suppose it looks flat and in good condition, but
in fact one slab is unsupported and tips when you stand on it, causing you
to fall. That's a situation where you could not reasonably be aware of the
risk and the authority should really be liable. In the same way, my
hypothetical off-road operator could let me onto his premises, take no steps
to find out if I had any experience, make no effort to inform me of any
risks and say "off yer go". In THOSE circumstances, he'd be negligent and
if I were damaged, I'd expect to claim from him. The difference being that
the risks were not either inherently obvious nor clearly stated.
But as a general rule, I reckon there's far too much of people wanting
someone else to take responsibility for their actions going on.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25
