From: eoates@us.oracle.com
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:53:30 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <wallich.726361788@lupine>, wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich) writes:
> eoates@us.oracle.com writes:
> 
>>I've made this argument for the reasonableness of seat-belt laws, and
>>I believe it still to be valid: if everyone was willing (and obligated
>>by law) to take responsbility for their own actions, seatbelt and
>>helmet (and other laws protecting you from yourself) would not be
>>necessary.  But if, for example, you fail to wear your seat belt, and
>>are involved in an accident, you will sue everyone in sight for your
>>injuries, even though it can be shown that your injuries were
>>increased by your own negligence (failure to wear the belt).  If it is
>>shown than one of the people you sued is even 1% at fault, they will
>>bear the entire financial burden (deep pockets).  Until that changes,
>>requiring you to wear seat belts helps protect me from your lawyers.
> 
> I, and many others of us who vehamently disagree with 'personal
> safety' laws, agree that if people took responsiblity for their own
> actions, this world would be a far better place.  The solution to this
> problem, however, is not to legislate against possibly unsafe
> behavior, it is to change the legal system which allows people to sue
> for (and win) absurd amounts of money in incidents in which the
> injured person was obviously at fault.
> 
> If I, for instance, slipped and fell down in my place of work because
> I was wearing slick-soled shoes on a rainy day, and broke my leg, I
> would go have my leg repaired, and would not consider my employer at
> fault for failing to prevent me from wearing improper footwear or
> doing something stupid.  As it is, most people would sue the company,
> not because it is logical, or that the company can be shown to be at
> fault, but because they *can*.
> 
> Arguing that because the system is screwed up, we have no choice but
> to legislate away personal freedom in exchange for attempting to
> legistlate personal responsiblity is utter foolishness.  What you will
> end up with is a system where not only can you sue for anything you
> want, but where you are prohibited in taking any risks, by
> governmental decree.
> 
> Don't assume that just because you are breaking one law, you cannot
> sucessfully sue anyone within 1 mile of a collision you were involved
> in.  The position you take assumes that if I am not wearing a
> seatbelt, and that has been declared a crime, that I cannot sue for
> damages incurred to my body because I was not wearing a seatbelt.  If
> this assumption is false, then passing 'personal protection
> legislation' has no effect other than to generate revenue for the
> local law enforcement officials when they cite people who do not
> comply.  I claim that this assumption *is* false, and that all such
> laws do is reduce my freedom to do as I choose (as long as such choice
> does not interfere with you personally), while not protecting *you*
> one bit from a lawsuit.
> 
> There was a fellow who posted recently somewhere on USENET who had
> pleaded guilty to a reckless driving charge.  The reason?  He struck
> one of a gang of kids/men who had surrounded his vehicle and were
> threating him and his car with weapons.  He drove slowly away from the
> group, and struck one of the criminals in the process.  The criminal
> then sued the driver for hitting him, and the fellow was advised to
> plea bargain down to a reckless driving charge to avoid being found at
> fault in a lawsuit.  With cases such as this on the books that *have*
> been brought to trial, and the lawbreaker having one the case, it is
> not too much of a stretch to see where legislating helmet use on a
> motorcycle does not preclude me from suing the person I ran into for
> injuries.  Depending on the skill of my lawyer, and the circumstances
> surrounding the case, I may have a good chance of *still* winning a
> large settlement, even if I was breaking one law when my injuries
> occured.
> 
> On a slightly different front, but with very similar ideology, one of
> these 'real footage of cops busting heads' shows was on some network
> (I had left the room to do something, and it came on while I was gone.
> No really).  They had apparently just done a bit on arresting
> prostitutes, and as part of the propaganda ending, said something like
> "They say this is a victimless crime, but this is a crime where the
> perpetrator is also the victim".  They said this as they were shoving
> some woman into the back of a police car.  So, what I think they are
> telling her is "we are arresting you so that you will stop victimizing
> yourself".  Yeah, right, that's the ticket.  By my riding in my car
> without wearing a seatbelt, I'm victimizing *myself*.  Now I
> understand.  This NewSpeak does take some getting used to, but as time
> goes on, I'm getting the hang of it.
> 
> I think I'll go eat some red meat now, while it's still legal...
> 
> -- 
> Ken Wallich
> 
> wallich@ncd.com ~ ken@wallich.com ~ kmw@al.org ~ [...]decwrl!vixie!amber!ken

< I didn't delete any of Ken's arguments because it would break the argument
thread too severely.  Sorry for the expenditure of bandwidth>

I didn't mean to imply by my comments that seat belt laws would prevent
lawsuits, or the illegality of driving without wearing one would reduce a
damage award (deep pockets still apply to medical and "pain and suffering"
awards, and so even if one is 1% at fault, if you can afford to pay, you will
:( ), but rather that such laws will encourage the wearing of seat belts and
thus reduce the amount of injuries one sustains in an accident.  If the
injuries are less, it is likely that damage awards will be lower.

That said, I agree in principle with Ken's post.  It would be far better to
reform the tort system to allow individuals the freedom that goes with
responsibility.  Realistically, if the VP  of the US gets derided and abused
whenever he mentions that many of the difficulties this country is facing are
due to our litigous nature and the presense of a system which not only permits,
but fosters the frivolous use of the courts, there is little hope of overall
reform.  When the legislatures are full of attornies, and the when all of the
consumer protection and civil rights organization scream in pain whenever the
right to sue is to be regulated, and the lawyers union, the ABA, refuses to
even consider that tort law needs reform, then reform is unlikely. 

With the extant atmosphere, we will see more laws which regulate personal
behavior in the name of protecting you from yourself.  If you don't like that,
then do as I do: never vote for an attorney for public office is another option
is available; don't give money to organizations which support the unlimited
right to sue, and when you must hire an attorney, make sure he or she is a
reasonable person who does not support abuse of the legal system.  And most
importantly, don't abuse the system yourself for personal gain, and make
derisive comments to those who do, even if they are friends and relatives.
-- 
Ed Oates (my opinions, not Oracle's)
 
" But scientists say that on Aug. 14,2126, a huge comet
  named Swift-Tuttle may smack the Earth without first
  filing an environmental empact statement or even getting
  Al Gore's permission.  If it hits a spotted owl habitat
  there will be litigation." - George Will, Dec. 28, 1992.