Reading this thread Skiers perish in Utah avalanche: Who’s At Fault? , I was struck that there seemed to be an automatic assumption that someone had to be at fault in the event of an accident. While I am aware that in this case, the victims might be liable - I was interested to know whether this is a common expectation in the US? My initial reaction to stuff like this is normally, “hey, what a shame, that’s tragic”, but nothing more.
I am wondering if my reaction o the thread (“Why does anyone have to be at fault”) is formed by the fact that in New Zealand we have automatic insurance, that provides no-fault coverage in the event of an accident or medical misadventure (and in return we can’t generally sue).
Without this sort of cover, do you automatically look to assign blame in any event?
Apparently it is necessary to blame someone for something.
While the victims of the tsunami have my sympathy, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Early warnings may have saved a lot of them, but there were none. The skiers didn’t have to go down that slope, but they did.
People die in natural disasters all the time. Who’s to blame? Nobody. That’s what you get for living.
In the US (IMHO), suing someone for something is almost second nature. Why? Because we can. It’s insane sometimes.
To me, it seems regrettably common here.
There are some reasons for it’s popularity. It allows people to dodge the blame. Little Susie has issues so the parents sure the media because it can’t be their fault. If somebody dies in an accident, call a lawyer and get a court settlement saying that it wasn’t your fault. It’s like lawsuits have become part of the grieving process. :rolleyes:
Also, there’s always the allure of $$$$$$$$$ for those suing and for the lawyers.
Sorry, I can’t help myself. Stuff like this brings out the cranky old man in me. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go yell at those consarn kids who keep throwing their ball in my yard. :rolleyes: