As we have seen and discussed. America now has established the legal principle that you are not responsible for your own actions. Because this is now enshrined in the law, we have seen enormous amounts of money paid out to:
-the people who used cigarettes (the money was awarded to the states governments)
-people who were injured by hot coffee
-people who were victims of criminals (who used guns)
-and now (it seems) people who became fat and unhealthy, from eating french fries and big Macs
I am wondering what the next bonanza will be…some possibilities:
-tanning salons: it has been long known that exposure to UV radiation can cause skin cancer-should the mfgs. of sun lamps start to be worried?
-whiskey distillers: many whiskeys contain small amounts of known carcinogenic chemicals (phenols and amines)-what is the potential here
-motor vehicles “kill” and “maim” thousands every year-should Detroit start to panic?
-playground equipment (junglr gyms, slides, etc.) cause extensive injuries and death to hundreds of toddlers and children
-swimming pools: drowning is a distinct possiblities
So, legal experts: what is the next big hazard that the lawyers of america are eager to protect us from?
When the first news of the cigarette companies being sued hit the media, I remember saying “Fast food will be next” to my dad.
Since I’m 1/1, I’m going to go ahead and make the call for the auto industry as next in line. (Which, for the record, I made last month)
The OP certainly hit the nail on the head: Americans are no longer responsible for their own actions. Truly sad.
Am I missing something here? Which of their own actions are these people not responsible for?
The next legal jackpot will be against some computer related service…like ‘addicted to internet surfing’…or 'addicted to Playstation 2.
I have to believe that there are ‘addicts’ of the internet. Some premise such as, “The colors and pop up adds, as well as the chatrooms and boards were designed to be addictive and habit forming, therefore I lost my job, family and…” etc.
I’m really surprised no one has gone after the Anhueser-Busch/Miller/Seagram’s axis of evil alcohol. I thought that one would be after tobacco. Now that it looks like fast food is the target, I’m guessing alcohol brewers/distillers will be next.
Without getting into a great debate…
-the people who used cigarettes- Those warnings on the side of the pack that say (roughly) “You, your children, and the rest of the worlds population will die if you smoke these” on the side are enough to let most people know that it’s going to hurt you.
-people who were injured by hot coffee- If someone hands me a 200 degree cup of coffee, you can be sure I’m going to be careful with it.
-people who were victims of criminals (who used guns)- They could have used a knife/stick/etc just as easily to injure someone.
-and now (it seems) people who became fat and unhealthy, from eating french fries and big Macs- They have only been screaming in the media (for as long as I can remember) that fast food will kill you.
Any of the above lawsuits could have been prevented with a little common sense. (save for the gun issue, where really no one was to blame, other than the criminal)
Let’s say you come to my house UDS, trip over my cracked sidewalk, and break your arm. Should I have to pay damages because you weren’t watching where you walked?
Yes, because otherwise you get to escape your personal responsibility to fix known dangers at your house.
jcmckaig
My question specifically related to those who had been shot by criminals. The OP clearly stated that they were awarded compensation only because they weren’t being held responsible for their own actions. This looked like nonsense to me, and I queried it. You explained it by saying that those who had been shot could equally have been stabbed or beaten. With respect, this still looks like nonsense. I ask again, which of the victim’s own actions is he not being held responsible for?
UDS, as I said:
To clarify: It isn’t Glock, or Smith & Wesson’s fault that the person got shot, as the criminal could just have easily grabbed a beer bottle and cracked them over the head.
Robb-So if a crack in my sidewalk is a “known hazard”, what about the lumps in my yard? Should I get someone out here ASAP to pave my entire property so that it is nice and even? No wait…Thats no good. A strong wind may blow through and cause someone to stumble, thus injuring themselves on the hard surface. Perhaps a layer of foam rubber padding two acres wide would do the trick? Then of course there is the house…What with doors that have corners (could put your eye out!) and carpet that might grab the edge of your shoe…
Oh what the hell- I’ll just sue the contracter who put up the house!
:rolleyes:
Well, leaving the guns aside (because, as I think is clear, I believe they were wrongly included in the original list):
What the listed actions have in common is
-
a producer who creates a risky product for profit, and
-
has earlier and/or better information about the risk than the consumer, and
-
decides to do nothing either to inform the consumer or reduce the risk.
I appreciate that this isn’t clearly true of the fast food case, but there’s been no judgment in that case and its not at all clear that the plaintiffs are going to win. Successful claims in cigarette cases, AFAIK, have all been brought by people who became addicted at a time when the tobacco companies knew of the risk factors but consumers arguably didn’t, and certainly at a time before warnings were printed. The key fact in the coffee case was not that the coffee was served hot, but that it was served much hotter than drive-through coffee is normally served. Consumers wouldn’t expect to be served coffee which would cause third-degree burns at two to three seconds; McDonald’s knew that they were serving coffee which would do this.
So, scrupulously avoiding Great Debates territory, I suggest we can’t identify the next likely similar claim unless we know of dangers associated with some product which consumers don’t generally know about, or which they have only recently learnt about, but which producers have known for some time.
On that basis we can probably rule out cars, playgrounds or swimming pools - unless there is a hidden defect, the dangers in these products are obvious, and consumers know about them. We can probably also rule out sunbeds, unless someone is going to argue that producers knew about a link to melanoma before consumers did. I must admit I was unaware that whiskey contained carcinogens, whereas presumably distillers know this. But causation would be a problem here; what kind of cancers to these carcinogens cause, and do they have other causes? And are these carcinogens found anywhere other than whiskey? Are they present in significant levels in whiskey? Are they naturally present, or to the producers add them for some purpose? Alcohol’s addictive properties have been well-known for centuries; no chance of a successful action there.
A good line of enquiry might be to look at products marketed to immature or impressionable groups like teenagers, who couldn’t be assumed to have the knowledge, judgment or awareness of other consumers.
If the US were to have a food scandal like the British experience with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, that might be fertile ground. Or some unforeseen and injurious consequence of genetic modification to food crops. The argument would be that the food producers knows that he is altering the genetic structure of the crops, and that he cannot foresee all the consequences of this and therefore cannot exclude the possibility of injurious consequences, whereas (in the absence of specific labelling) the consumer does not know that the crop has been genetically modified, or how.
jcmckaig, you began an OP where you claim personal responsibility is dead. To “illustrate” this, you ask about a cracked sidewalk that is known to you and apparently such a severe crack that people can trip over it, then you suggest that someone else tripping over that crack has no personal responsibility and can sue you. If you choose to ignore your personal responsibility in allowing this known danger to continue, you should be prepared to accept the possibilty of your inaction leading to injuries to others. As to your other concerns, since most of your post was made out of straw, you should really only concern yourself with someone putting out an eye.
You migth consider reading this current thread on McDonald’s. It likely won’t change your mind, but at least you will read that some people see it as an example of McDonald’s trying to shirk its responsibility.