just wondering about liability release

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The big public cases rarely would be solved by who pays the health insurance costs. It's usually the punitive fines that get the news reports of multimillion dollar payouts. I suspect it's the same in Canada but with a much smaller population and a preponderance of US news, you just don't hear about as many cases, so it seems better.



The vast majority of cases are sorted out between insurance companies. In fact, if a someone runs you over with an uninsured car (completely illegal to be driving in most states), odds are you insurance won't bother with a case because there is no money to get from your average uninsured driver.

You my be correct. It's certainly the case that we do have injury-driven law suits. I suspect that the numbers are increasing.... as with many social and economic developments, we seem to follow the American lead a decade or so later.

I'm sure the data is out there to answer this, but I bet that since damages are smaller (public healthcare, stronger social safety net), and we are a less litigious society by international measures, I bet punitive settlements are smaller as well.

Funny you should use the skydiving example. I was one of those kids. Our 1/2 day training session was definitely not spent mostly on legalities and ways you can die. Of course, that was 35 years ago, so maybe things have changed.

[BandB]

Product liability is a worldwide issue and whether one country is more litigious in that regard or not isn't really the issue. It's also appropriate. You read of the spectacular cases impacting one life, but there are thousands of cases that cost many lives. I've seen automobiles with major issues and manufacturers refusing to recognize them until a few lives lost and a line of suits. That litigation not only was for those families where lives were lost, but it saved a lot of other lives by making the manufacturer fix the problem.

Yes, there are people who sue for everything, but take away the ability to sue for product liability or negligence and we'd all be less safe. I think just of a very narrow area of litigation which has been unsafe car seats and flammable pajamas and blankets for kids. Seems like common sense should have worked, but it doesn't. As a result car seats are far safer today than they once were.

The one liability that costs us all the most is medical malpractice. Perhaps there should be limits, but how do you put a value on lives? It's sad it makes it so expensive to practice medicine, but it's so expensive not because of merit-less suits. It's expensive because of so many bad doctors, hospitals and surgeons. John Hopkins did a study that found that medical mistakes outrank respiratory illnesses in deaths caused and respiratory is officially the third leading cause of death in the US.

None of this especially relevant to a private boat. Waiver doesn't really matter. If you operate your boat negligently and someone gets injured as a result, you're responsible.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Already well aware of the particulars.

Stick a hot cup of coffee between your legs in a moving car . . . .

Apparently not. Car was parked. But I understand not wanting facts to clutter up an already firmly held opinion.

Have you ever spilled coffee in your lap? Me too. It hurt. But it didn't put me in the hospital for 8 days, skin grafts, etc. Because it wasn't at 185 degrees. Coffee that hot needs the same care as a cup of acid.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

Apparently not. Car was parked. But I understand not wanting facts to clutter up an already firmly held opinion.

Have you ever spilled coffee in your lap? Me too. It hurt. But it didn't put me in the hospital for 8 days, skin grafts, etc. Because it wasn't at 185 degrees. Coffee that hot needs the same care as a cup of acid.

It was a stupid and dangerous practice by McDonald's and the settlement was for far less than the court ruled. However, as a result of that suit, others were spared. Just as it seems obvious not to put coffee in your lap, it also seems obvious to me that one should not be serving products at dangerous temperatures. I wonder how many thousands of people suffered other burns as a result but just assumed it was normal for hot coffee.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by BandB

It was a stupid and dangerous practice by McDonald's and the settlement was for far less than the court ruled. However, as a result of that suit, others were spared. Just as it seems obvious not to put coffee in your lap, it also seems obvious to me that one should not be serving products at dangerous temperatures. I wonder how many thousands of people suffered other burns as a result but just assumed it was normal for hot coffee.

Do really believe that?

[nautical62]

While the McDonalds case may show how a seemingly minor thing can result in a large liability case, I think it's important to understand that case hinged on the duty a commercial provider has to protect customers from harm and in this case fell under product liability which has even tougher standards. This is not the same as the duty one has to protect friends from risks inherent in sailing with you.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Do really believe that?

Yes, I absolutely believe that. I believe in corporate responsibility even though I've spent my career on the business side.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by BandB

It was a stupid and dangerous practice by McDonald's and the settlement was for far less than the court ruled. However, as a result of that suit, others were spared. Just as it seems obvious not to put coffee in your lap, it also seems obvious to me that one should not be serving products at dangerous temperatures. I wonder how many thousands of people suffered other burns as a result but just assumed it was normal for hot coffee.

Finding the right balance between freedom (to be stupid) and collective protection is a constant challenge.

Up my way there are people killed every year by running into trees with their suped up snow machines. This always prompts the safety folk to demand more mandator gear, and reduced speed limits. I usually flippantly suggest removing all restrictions to ensure the dummies are culled before they can procreate.

I'm not an anti-government nutbar, but I do think we are over-regulated in the name of "safety and security". When will society decide that in the name of safety and security that people will no longer be allowed to cruise around in a smallish boat?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by BandB

Yes, I absolutely believe that. I believe in corporate responsibility even though I've spent my career on the business side.

Maybe it should have been labeled hot coffee don't put it in your crotch. Or we reserve the right not to sell to stupid people. Suing has gone rampant and the consumer ultimately pays for it.
I guess it will come down to we can agree to disagree.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Maybe it should have been labeled hot coffee don't put it in your crotch. Or we reserve the right not to sell to stupid people. Suing has gone rampant and the consumer ultimately pays for it.
I guess it will come down to we can agree to disagree.

And the good thing is they stopped serving at those temperatures.