Perfect example how one bad apple ruins it for all

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by Tomm0

My insurer would go to court, rather than me. I can afford for my insurer to go to court - because it doesn't cost me anything. Same with the VCG.

One danger is that the insurer settles, then sets this as a pseudo-precedent, in that they then settle all similar instances as well. The insurer then builds this cost, with its associated risk, into the premiums in future - OR - puts in an exclusion for it, basically making the VCG stop doing it because they wouldn't be insured.

Don't know how often things are settled in OZ, but here it seems insurers almost always settle. Our club was sued, club lawyers and insurance lawyers all agreed the person had no case. They still settled for a lot of money to not take the chance in court.

In the case of this thread one of the posts has already said they are no longer rescuing boats. Sounds like no matter what happens in court the service is gone.

[Andrew Troup]

cal40 beat me to it, and nailed all the points I had better than I ever could, especially the last one.

[Lagoon4us]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

[Andrew Troup]

I think the actions of lawyers reflect a deeper issue, one which is perhaps becoming our biggest challenge:

We seem to have completely forgotten how to privilege the long term needs of society over the short term 'needs' * of the individual.

(which are often not even needs, but merely wants)

Let's start a list and see where it takes us: Political policies, the sorts of governments we have, the nature of legislation and the way judges interpret it, as well as the rule of lawyers#: these I think all point at the same thing.

# Lawyers act for clients. No clients, no lawyers.

And this list could carry on, easily as long as my arm and considerably longer than the reader's patience.

OK: here's the thing: businesses, even the largest corporations, have adopted the same sort of 'me, me, me' ethos. By imperceptible degrees. And it absolutely suits them if (in fact, in my gloomier moments I see them as the major agent for grooming us so that) we are entirely wrapped up in our own fleeting wants and whims.

Just read the thread titles on this forum: "which new iPad" ... "whose furler" ... "how many staterooms" ... "what's the biggest boat a couple can dock" ...
these types of questions seem to predominate over questions which do not result in the exchange of large wads of cash.

And we're cruising sailors ... relatively immune, both by age and inclination, you'd think, from rampant consumerism...

But already I sense the hackles and bayonets of defensiveness rising like a ghostly presence, so I'll hastily backpedal and resume sticking it to commerce:

"What's good for (me) is good for the country" - I forget the exact wording, and in any case, McNamara was misquoted or taken out of context when he said that on behalf of the Ford Motor Co, (before he became Defence Secretary to JFK):

He didn't even mean it, and yet it caused a real stir.

Cripes, I've heard about it, and I was a very small child on the far side of the world.

Today he would mean it, and it would be p57 in the Post or the NYT ... but not both.

[Lagoon4us]

Sadly the term 'Ambulance Chaser' was given to lawyers following the sirens to find the victim (of more ways than just the accident).

Now it seems it's those giving care that may suffer.

It invokes the bad attitude of 'don't get involved', turn your head.....

[delmarrey]

Maybe a "good samaritan law" for boaters would be in order.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

... "What's good for (me) is good for the country" - I forget the exact wording, and in any case, McNamara was misquoted or taken out of context when he said that on behalf of the Ford Motor Co, (before he became Defence Secretary to JFK):

He didn't even mean it, and yet it caused a real stir.

Cripes, I've heard about it, and I was a very small child on the far side of the world.

Today he would mean it, and it would be p57 in the Post or the NYT ... but not both.

You've got the gist of the idea right, even if the facts are a little off.

During Charles Wilson’s confirmation hearings (as Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense), when asked if he could make a decision as Secretary of Defense that would be adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively. But he added that he could not conceive of such a situation:

"because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

This statement has been misquoted endlessly, in the inverted form of "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" as an example of the self-centered attitude of executives. Although Wilson tried for years to correct the misquote, he was reported at the time of his retirement in 1957 to have accepted the popular impression.

➥ GM's 'Engine Charlie' Wilson learned to live with a misquote | Auto news | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

[denverd0n]

I thought Australia followed the British system where loser pays for these kinds of suits. I take it they don't?

Simply requiring the loser to pay for the legal costs of the other side would go a long way towards reducing frivolous lawsuits.

Of course, the lawyers argue that this system unfairly favors the rich, who can afford to pursue any lawsuit they want, while the poor will only find a lawyer to represent them when they are almost certain to win. My response to that is, the current system (at least in the U.S.) DOESN'T unfairly favor the rich!?! You've got to be kidding! Of course lawyers want to keep things the way they are, because then the lawyers ALWAYS win, no matter what happens to the clients.

[Lagoon4us]

There's a fair bit of "no win no fee" where muscly law companies scare the crap out of the target.. Even lawyers afraid of taking them on in defence..

[Tbrad]

Who was it that said; "the first thing we must do is hang all the lawyers." My daughter came to me years ago and said that she wanted to attend law school. I promptly informed her that I would quite gladly pay for her college education in any area BUT law. If she wanted to go to law school she would do so on her own hook. She has had a very successful career in the arts.

[Lagoon4us]

Shakespeare, Eagles and me in post #18

[rtbates]

Wouldn't the simple answer be to' salvage' the drifting vessel rather than "rescue" it? Then you can deal with the owner as rightful salvager. I suppose you then, of course, assume responsibility for the vessel. As a salvaged vessel, I'd assume the owner had just given up his rights to ownership, but I could be very wrong.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by rtbates

Wouldn't the simple answer be to' salvage' the drifting vessel rather than "rescue" it? Then you can deal with the owner as rightful salvager. I suppose you then, of course, assume responsibility for the vessel. As a salvaged vessel, I'd assume the owner had just given up his rights to ownership, but I could be very wrong.

Why don't you guys run it like the RNLI in the UK.. as a charity.. still the hardcore of volunteers but with at least one paid member per station/boat... rescues as normal....
but when when police/council approach you hand them a simple salvage form which is basically a bill enforcable by them for the collection and movement to a pre-determined location... much like the car wheel lock/tow aqway brigade... gorra pay the fine to find your car..
Oh.. and film every job.. a Go-Pro on a helmet recording of everything

[maytrix]

Perhaps if you are going to help a drifting boat that is unmanned, you should get some pictures or video so you can show what would happen if you did nothing.

I think I'd rather take the chance and help someone than watch a boat drift off.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by cal40john

Don't know how often things are settled in OZ, but here it seems insurers almost always settle. Our club was sued, club lawyers and insurance lawyers all agreed the person had no case. They still settled for a lot of money to not take the chance in court.

Agreed... and I hate that this is so. Kind of removes any reward for acting responsibly. Insurance will cover our asses for being asses. And mostly protect the rest of us from the actions of asses, I guess.