A current trend in today’s Society is that an individual can be fined or sued for another person’s carelessness or law-breaking.
Examples: The selling of tobacco or alcohol to teenagers
who are aware that it is illegal to purchase
them.
An uninvited guest slips on your obviously icy
sidewalk while wearing slippery shoes.
The infamous McDonald’s “Coffee Cup between legs”
case.
Parents being held liable for their children’s
vandalism.
It strikes me that one should be held accountable for one’s own carelessness but it seems that this is no longer the case. Any opinions?
My general opinion is that, yes, people don’t accept enough personal responsibility for their own actions.
On three of these particular items…
I would say it depends. Retailers who choose to sell these items accept the laws that govern selling such items. Such as carding. If they sell to a teenager w/o having carded, well yes they should be held responsible in some form (such as losing their license to sell). Now if the kid is using a well-crafted fake ID, then I can’t see how it necessarily lies with the retailer. In both cases, however, the kids are knowingly breaking the law, and they have to be held accountable for their own actions too.
Here, it lies with the visitor. I should not be held responsible for keeping my walk completely ice-free at all times (at a private residence - a public place that I own like a restaurant or store or hotel that is always visited by “uninvited” guests should have ice-free sidewalks). But again, hell, people slip - it happens. Must I, the slipper, go find someone to sue because I’m unable to stay balanced?
But besides the McDonald’s one, are there specific cases you are referring to? There are so many variables in any particular instance that could lead to a changed mind - for instance, if you read the McDonald’s one, it’d be hard to think that that particular McDonald’s didn’t have some blame for the incident.
Not only that, several of these laws are specifically worded to place the legal responsibility on the seller. For example, the Ohio Revised Code states, in Section 2927.02:
"(A) No manufacturer, producer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of cigarettes or other tobacco products, or any agent, employee, or representative of a manufacturer, producer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of cigarettes or other tobacco products shall do any of the following:
(1) Give, sell, or otherwise distribute cigarettes or other tobacco products to any person under eighteen years of age;
(2) Give away, sell, or distribute cigarettes or other tobacco products in any place that does not have posted in a conspicuous place a sign stating that giving, selling, or otherwise distributing cigarettes or other tobacco products to a person under eighteen years of age is prohibited by law.
. . .
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of illegal distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If the offender previously has been convicted of a violation of this section, then illegal distribution of cigarettes or other tobacco products is a misdemeanor of the third degree."
The legal proscription is completely on the seller, not the purchaser.
How are situations such as an underage who has a “great” fake ID handled? I can see that the law puts the entire onus on the seller…but what does that leave them to do? Can they outright refuse to sell to someone on a “hunch” (i.e., I “think” you’re ID is fake, sir)? Does this same law then safeguard them in this manner, so they’re not caught out by a fake ID?
I know several people who even at ages 28 still get carded…
Here in Oregon (at least at the major supermarkets) they now scan the ID into a state-wide computer-check system. I don’t know offhand if the system is mandatory or not, but it seems like a good bet for the seller (much harder to fake the IDs).
Not that it couldn’t happen, but I’ve never heard of someone getting busted for acceptimg fake ID. I’ve only heard of people getting busted for not asking for ID. and once for accepting ID that said the person was underage.
I should make this clearer - just was thinking that by refusing to serve someone who is of legal age based upon a “hunch” I could get accused of discrimination.
Damn the framers of the Constitution! They should have included something in the Bill of Rights to prevent this insanity. If they had a crystal ball, I am sure that they would have included the following:
“All persons have the responsibility to their own actions. The consequence of these actions shall not be the liability of others unless there is unusual negligence, criminal intent, or obvious deceit”
Fixing blame for problems is not so hard to do. More often than not, many people are responsible when something bad happens. Cigarette companies who sell cancer sticks are guilty. People who should know better but smoke cancer sticks are guilty.
People who slip on the ice should be more careful. Guilty. People who have ice-covered sidewalks and don’t take the time to scrape them are guilty.
Teens who buy alcohol underage and wreck the car are guilty. People who sell powerful intoxicants like alcohol to obvious minors are guilty. And their parents who don’t watch out for the kids? Guilty.
It’s much more complex than “personal responsibility”, though I wish it were not.
To Skylark: No, I am not refering to specific cases. I can speak from experience (I am a clerk) on cigarettes. I have been the victim of a “Sting operation”. But the other examples were items I have seen mentioned on the news.
RE: The seller knows the laws
Yes, they do. But why does society expect the seller to be the parent. And why such a high age limit. A 16 year old can drive a car which has the potential to kill other people if used irresponsibly. The purchase of cigarettes only harms the purchaser. (I know, I know, 2nd hand smoke! etc but other people can leave the area. An accident victim usually can’t)
And I agree with you on public places.
For the record, the sting involved a 15 year old girl made up to appear 19 years old and sent in at our stores busiest time.
We have the same thing here in Saskatechewan. Ours is twenty-five. The result of such bull pucky is tie-ups in the line-ups as people dig out there wallets or a search for a staff member who can verify that the person is of age.
As a side note: We are able to sell condoms without asking for id. Should the business be held responsible for any adverse affects that might occur from use of said items.
To be honest, I honestly don’t know the extent of liability that the seller accrues in this situation. I have seen it happen, though, at a grocery store recently. The woman in line ahead of me had beer with her groceries, and the cashier asked for ID. She could not produce any, and the cashier refused to sell it to her. For all I know, she went to customer service and had the situation rectified, but the cashier apparently felt she had the right to err on the side of the law.
Cigarettes: the recent judgments against big tobacco have been because they have willfully lied about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke for years. This has put them in the position of telling their customers, essentially, to ignore the warnings. This is where their liability lies, imho.
Coffee: this has been covered, but let me add, briefly: yes, you expect coffee to be hot, but you don’t expect a drive-through restaurant to sell you a substance that can cause major physical damage requiring a prolonged hospital stay and skin grafts. If they are selling such a substance, you should reasonably expect them to inform you of this. (At Bob’s Drive Through Sulfuric Acid Hut, you can bet their lids are on more securely than a McDonald’s lid.) McDonald’s was punished financially for being so cavalier about such a dangerous substance.
What about the guy who sued some San Diego arena for millions because there were women in the men’s room during an Elton John concert due to an inadequacy of women’s toilets? Sounds ludicrous on the face of it, but the venue ahd been asked time and time again to make more facilities available for women (it was designed, IIRC, as a sports facility and so–get this–had very few women’s toilets). Nothing the community had tried up to that point had worked; there were still insufficient women’s toilets. Finally, threatened with a huge lawsuit, they made some changes. IMHO, the guy who stepped up to bring the suit was a brave soul. He was quite a laughingstock for a while.
Icy sidewalk: if it’s on your property and they’re uninvited, screw 'em. If it’s the public sidewalk and you’ve shoveled it, but badly, then you are perhaps somewhat liable. If it’s public and you haven’t touched it, then it’s an act of god. Sue the city for not clearing the sidewalks if you must sue someone. Personally, I’d tell the idiot to walk more carefully. It’s icy, for god’s sake.
The only example in the OP that I take issue with is parental responsibility. Yes, yes and yes, parents should be held accountable for their children. That’s why they are parent and why they are children. Children while perhaps having the knowledge of what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t often do not have the same degree of skill in practicing restraint. Children who vandalize obviously have too much time on their hands. And where are their parents while these acts are being committed? That’s the problem here. We want to “make” children but then we don’t want to take “responsibility” for them. It’s crap. We are the adults and ultimately responsible for their behavior until they are adults and the responsiblity passes to them.
This is an argument I see over and over again. Parents do not own their children, cannot operate them by remote control, and cannot be held responsible for everything they do. Yes, they are legally and financially responsible for debts or fines incurred by their children. Yes, parents have the moral duty to teach their children right from wrong. But parents cannot actually make the kids’ choices for them.
I have seen good families with great kids… except for one. One family in the town I grew up in had three decent kids, all gainfully employed, family folks. The other kid, second of the four, is a wastrel who has been in and out of jail for drugs, burglary, and domestic abuse, beginning in his teen years. He was raised in the same house, the same way, and he turned out to be a complete ass. How are these parents responsible? The reverse often turns out to be true. Most of you can probably think of people who had horrible parents who still turned out just fine. Either you get bad kids in spite of good parenting, or you get good kids in spite of bad parenting, but either way, it’s ultimately the kids who make the choices.
People are definitely affected by their environments, and parents have enormous power to shape their children, but it is only one influence among many. And, to top it off, there is no parenting handbook to consult. Parenting is like nutrition in that there is an opinion, seemingly reasonable and espoused by professionals for every day of the year. There are a few things universally agreed on as good and bad, but a huge middle ground left to argue over. Parents are left to make it up as they go along, and most of them do the best damned job they can of it so far as I can see.
I understand being responsible for your children as to provide them with the needs of life, plus guidences and support. May I ask if you have children? And if you do, should you be held responsible should they break in to a business and steal $1000’s of dollars of merchandise? Should you be the one to pay it back?
Yes I do have children and what I have seen very often from other parents that I come into contact with over the years is a bad habit of blame shifting. I can’t tell you how many times I have encountered parents that are more than willing to blame society, schools, MTV and other children for their own children’s misdeeds. Perhaps this is only natural but it is bad parenting just the same. “Litte Johnny couldn’t have possibly done that on his own it must have been that so-in-so he hangs around with, it’s his fault, he lead my son into it”. This attitude often comes from decent well meaning parents that are at least attempting to teach their children right from wrong. What they aren’t teaching them is culpability. Now with that said…
There are many instances where parents should be held accountable for their childrens actions, and yes they should pay. If you are a gun owner and your child uses one of your guns to commit a crime (heaven forbid he should kill someone with it) then you should also be held responsible. If your son is a second or third generation gang member and you condone, perhaps even facilitate the activities of the gang, then you should be held accountable. If your child is out after midnight and vandalizes his school, where the hell were you? Why was he out so late and you didn’t know his where abouts? If you are a card carrying KKK bigot, that preaches to your child constantly radical hate views, he goes out and torches a black church, your ass should be right up there in jail, and made to pay restitution! There are many instances when parents should be held accountable but they are not.
I never said that I advocated some type of blanket legislation that would put well meaning, hard working, decent parents in jepardy of prosecution. But people on this board and elsewhere are always talking about personal responsibility, then put your money where your mouth is, take responsibility for the MOST IMPORTANT job you will ever have in your life! Take responsibility for your children. Not only do I firmly believe that individual parents should be shouldering the responsibility for our own children, I believe we all should, as a society, be accepting the task of seeing to it that our children are equipped to live in a peaceful environment. We don’t want a nation of youthful criminals, then it’s our job to give them the guidance that will prevent this tradgedy. They are after all our children, we are the adults, we made them, let’s save them.