Luckily the oversight of the government into the food industry has protected us! I mean, you never hear about something like peanut butter and products that include peanut butter being sold, with government oversight, having any issues. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/MajorProductRecalls/Peanut/default.htm
In general terms, the fact that 100 % perfection in protecting against food hazards cannot be obtained is not a sound reason for not trying to protect the public in the first place.
In specific terms, your cite seems to show that a company refused a voluntary request by the FDA to recall a product the FDA determined was contaminated. After the company failed to do this, the FDA is moving towards informing consumers and retailers, and I’m sure harsher sanctions will follow.
And the failure was… where exactly?
like the responsibility to make choices that reasonably maximize society’s safety?
I know I’m forming a habit of only linking to relevant outside sources, but man is this Onion article appropriate…
Brilliant.
And now…
I wanna go to Mount Trashmore
Take me take me take me now!
Now! Now! Now! Now! Now!
Mount Trashmore take me there right now!
…will be running through my head all day.
Like the person who got hurt and decided to sue. No one is complaining about the city - we’re complaining about the person who sued the city after they took a risk that they chose to take.
my point is you’re blindly absolving a party of their responsibility to act responsibly and reasonably - in this case, the city.
it’s not “litigious” if you are actually harmed by someone’s negligence and decide to seek compensation, as much as you would like to think that’s the case.
Even I find the proposition that “the city is responsible for not barring access to everything that might injure someone” highly dubious.
it’s not “everything”. it’s reasonably barring access to things that pose an unreasonable risk of injury to an average person.
You understand, of course, that we are essentially talking about a big fucking hill?
No, I think you’ll find the criterion used is “things that pose an unreasonable risk of injury to an average idiot.”
You’ll find that the average person is quite capable of weighing risks for themselves.
The average person has an IQ of 100. Think about that for a moment.
The average person actually sucks at weighing risks, in an increasingly complex society, and one in which we are isolated from their environment. You’d THINK that everyone would know that snow is slippery but…
The magestic peaks of Mt Trashmore closed! You would probably just get a nose bleed if you tried to climb those heights anyway. My son tells me there is a hill in Norfolk, can’t remember the name but it is near ODU, where they managed to do some snowboarding.
For those who don’t know Va. Beach, a snow like this only happens there every decade or so and there really is only one place that could be considered anything close to a “hill” and that is Mt. Trashmore. It is basically a really big pile of dirt and in no way could ever be considered a hill except in a place that is completely flat.
My first thought on opening this thread was that it would be about the Toyota class action suits - no one got hurt, but they could have! Bad Toyota - acknowledging the problem and taking immediate action to correct it!
My second thought was that if no one gets hurt sledding, you aren’t doing it right.
What area was that, exactly? They closed the place, and there ain’t no more hills down there.
It’s all a matter of degree. You engaged in a nice little piece of strawman and reductive fallacy there; if someone’s against protecting people from sledding (which is at least a little bit inherently dangerous already), then he must be against any and all government protection for anything. I assume you take my meaning here and further explaination is unnecessary.
Or think of it this way: is it OK for the government to pass a nationwide speed limit of 5 MPH? If not, why not? Isn’t life precious? After all, isn’t it the government’s job to protect us from ourselves?
Or how about a ban on any sports activities in all public areas? After all, don’t peopple get hurt playing them sometimes?
Frivolous lawsuits are both a form of free speech and a form of free enterprise. Not too many things in American life can make that statement. They’ll be with us for the foreseeable future.
So will outwardly moronic, life-complicating, civilization-eroding CYA policies, disclaimers, regulations, and even counter-litigation on the part of private and public entities alike.
IANAL. For which I thank Og every day of my life.
you don’t collect damages unless you are… damaged. it’s not a form of free enterprise. and they’re not a form of free speech, either, because you can get sanctioned for engaging in barratry. of course, I wouldn’t expect much more from such a clear ideologue like yourself.
you, like most here, misunderstand. it’s not that people are getting hurt in inherently dangerous activities. it’s that a sue-able entity (more on this in a second) is not taking reasonable steps to assuage the risk on its own property.
look, you don’t sue for playing baseball and getting beaned by a pitch or tripping in the outfield. you do sue if someone purposely pitches at your head. you do sue if there was a defect on the baseball diamond that was known to the park department and they did nothing about. it’s a slight distinction, i know, it’s hard to grasp.
Tort immunity affords certain government entities the right to engage in the public policy risk/reward analysis you are asking for here.
I would think a sign posted on the hill would serve much better than simply banning an activity. It’s a park, it’s supposed to be there for people to enjoy, not to look at from their cars.
If you’re expecting public places to be free from hazard, that isn’t possible. Would you have the government close down and shut away all the national parks? People die in them every year. Nature is not very forgiving, idiocy is not often rewarded. Stick your face over a geyser in Yellowstone and you should expect a face full of boiling water.
Common sense isn’t so common.