From: harryb@phred.UUCP (harry barnett)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: harryb@phred.UUCP
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Physio-Control

In article 3591@voodoo.UUCP, mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:
>In article <4124@phred.UUCP> harryb@phred.UUCP writes:
>>
>>However, if a statute requiring helmets exists,
>>then A's insurance company will argue that B contributed to his own
>>injuries, and possibly would have escaped injury had he not violated
>>the law by failing to wear a helmet.  In such a situation, it is not
>>only possible, but highly probable that A's insurance company will
>>escape any liability to B whatsoever, regardless of whether A was drunk
>>and entirely at fault for the accident.
>
>I think Harry is missing the point here.  Being entirely at fault for
>an accident is not necessiarly the same as being responisible for all
>injuries and costs that result from the accident.

BEEEEEEP!  Wrong Answer.  According to well established principles of
English Common Law of Torts, from whence US law derives, (and even
further back into its roots in something loosely called the
'Judeo-Christian Ethic',) this is exactly WRONG, OPPOSITE OF 'THE WAY
IT IS', ETC.

If you wanna throw out the foundations of US law and establish your own
set of laws/codified ethics/social system, have at it.  Just be up
front about where you're coming from and what you're trying to do.
OBTW, you should expect to meet quite a few froward and contentious
people along the way.

Don't accuse me of 'missing the point', just because I don't agree with
it.  Maybe I've got your point pegged pretty well.  Let me see.  Does
it go something like this?

"I have a right to demand that others live their lives under a set of
constraints that I and other 'right thinking' (Oops, 'politically
correct thinking') people like me establish.  If you think like me,
then your input will be considered.  If you do not, then you are
obviously unqualified to have an input, and we will get *REAL* anal
retentive and *FORCE* you to live OUR way."

>Clearly, if the 
>innocent party in an accident doesn't exersize
>due care, or is negligent in providing for their own safety, most or
>even all of the cost and injuries in a accident can be due to their
>actions - and not the "at fault" individual.  
>

Great followup!  Terrific argument!  Let's see where else it can apply?

Hmmm!

How about:

     Clearly, if the innocent <victim> in <a rape> doesn't exercise due
     care, or is negligent in providing for their own safety, most or
     even all of the cost and injuries in <a rape> can be due to their
     actions - and not the "at fault" individual.
     
Really original!  Coherent!  Rational!  A blinding point of light!
Somebody call the defense lawyers and let them know all about this
reasoning!

>I personally applaud such behavior by an insurance company as I don't
>believe having an insurance policy  gives one the right to 
>abandon due caution and a *reasonable* amount of personal responsibility
>and common sense.  I can't count the number of times I've heard someone
>say "Don't bother locking the door... it's insured."  Translation: "I'm
>too lazy to make even a minimal effort to protect myself, but if my
>lifestyle winds up costing me, I expect everybody else to pay".
>
>My own opinion is that insurance is supposed to spread risk amoung
>individuals with *similar* risk profiles - not subsidize high risk
>individuals with low risk individuals.  But this concept is getting
>lost with "one size fits all" group insurance coverage.
>

Ready.  Fire.  Aim.  But totally irrelevant to the posted scenario you
included.  Try reading it.  Then try again.

>>This law, along with seat belt laws, (and, incidentally, ALL other
>>statutory law, and most common law :-), is conceived, designed,
>>enacted, imposed, and enforced for the purpose of keeping The Money in
>>the hands of The People Who Have The Money. 
>
>Wow!  That a pretty broad (and ridiculous) statement.  The simple fact
>is that the more insurance companies have to pay out, the more they have
>to collect from the rate payers.  Blaming the "people with money" or
>"the stockholders" is inappropriate and just plain wrong.

Let's see.  Is this where I'm supposed to say, "No, it's not!" so you
can say, "Yes, it is!" so I can say, "No, it's not!" so you can
say...?  Ohhhhhh, I just *LOVE* 'simple facts' and 'plain wrong'
things, don't you?

Confucious say:  Responding to one glittering generality with three
more pretty ridiculous argument!

>
>-- 
>Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
>              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com

harryb@phred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brittanius (shocked):  Caesar, this is not proper.
Theodotus (outraged):  How?
Caesar (recovering his self possession):  Pardon him, Theodotus:  He is
a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are
the laws of nature.

		--Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general