It Makes Me Sooooo Maaaaad!!!!!!

[FR Drew]

Precisely! Wombat has it right and so does Johnny.

We're all agreed, frivolous suing is crap and the sooner it stops the better. Hopefully we're also agreed that if the system was changed or there was a decent safety net (such as BJ has implied exists in NZ) then the need to sue would vanish.

Cave Dweller, if you get hurt riding and screw yourself up bad, what's your survival strategy? You planning on taking your misshapen self, living in a cardboard box in the park and gibbering at people as they pass by so you can afford to eat? Seriously, I'm keen to know. You're in a sport where people can get hurt bad (hell, you're in a world where people can get hurt bad) what's your plans? You hit a tree ridng in the forest and with no govt or insurance safety net (I'm pretty sure you'll find that MTB'ing will be an excluded activity on your disability and life insurace) what more can you do but sue the folks who have the tree or those who put the track next to it. You gonna enter lotto? I'll put money on it that if you F yourself up and it's your only option you're gonna be making a beeline to the lawyers, same as anyone else would.

I knew as soon as I posted that I'd get a post with "Get out of the sport if that's your 'tude, you'll mess it up for all the rest of us" Apologies, I'm not trying to start a pissing contest or a flame war.

Point is, people are attacking the wrong person. It's not the fault of the 13 year old, or the bmx track, it's the healthcare and public support system we live in.

Having tracks shut down sucks, having dirt jumps and northshore bulldozed sucks too, having events cancelled sucks. No-one is arguing the point. We all agree. You shouldn't have to sign a waiver (makes no difference, you can't sign away your legal rights even if you sign the form).

Sure, ride sensible, wear the proper protective gear, (Hey, has anyone seen a thread about wearing helmets anywhere around here? I'm sure I saw one somewhere...) know your limits, take baby steps, don't be a tool and try and reduce the chances that you'll get hurt. At the end of the day though, if the spit hits the fan, you're going to have to take care of your situation through whatever means there is available.

Wombat is right, this thread is going no-where fast. Sensible people would be off soldering up tube amps

DISCLAIMER! Warning, valve amplifiers contain potentially dangerous and lethal voltages and should not be modfied or constructed by inexperienced builders.

Happy soldering folks,

Drew

 

[johnny]

I did thouroghly enjoy that contest of opinion though.

Thanks all

 

[Plankosaurus]

whoah!!!

thats a whole bunch of thread to sort through eh

IMO, for what its worth, is that this whole sueing trend should have some serious stops put on it. i mean if walk into a shop thats got a floor covered in ky jelly and 10 inch sharp rusty spikes sticking out of the walls and you somehow manage to hurt yourself, then i can probably understand the need to sue. but this case is friggin ridiculous.

granted, i dont know all the circumstances, they might have had some kind of encouraging sign out the front telling 13 year olds to try out their biggest jump unsupervised without a lid, but i doubt it. it just stinks like an opportunistic grab for the cash like so many other bullshit lawsuits out there.

i'll give it this much, the girl IS in need of the money, but since when did that give you the right to take it from someone else and potentially ruin their lives, and at the same time spoil the fun for everyone else that might have enjoyed that little track? typical selfish human thinking there, sucks to be us as a race eh....

i agree with a lot of you whole heartedly, this chick SHOULD be provided for and our current systems wont do that. but does that mean that she should go and rob someone else of their life for it? i also agree that she's been dealt shyte hand and she'd definately have my sympathy if she hadn't sued, but plenty of other ppls get dealt stinkers aswell, some much worse than her, and dont have anyone to sue. who are they gunna have a shot at to get what they want in life?

the biggest problem i have tho, is that this just adds another case to the long list thats slowly making everything fun either too costly or entirely innaccessable. soon, for fun, we'll all be sitting at home in giant cotton buds reading rubber edged books so we dont bruise up or get papercuts and sue.....

 

[Plankosaurus]

oh yeah, thats just an opinion. be gentle with me, i'm new

 

[Jordy]

that was at my local BMX track, turned up on the news last night within 15 minutes of Ride Illawarra's segment on getting a mountainbiking park up here.

On a side note, my mate crashed at that BMX track a few years ago which put him in a Coma for 3 weeks, their arent really any huge jumps...im pretty sure the main cause of crashes is Wind down there...it is situated right next to an air strip and at the bottom of a *gully* that forces excessive winds down there

 

[dickyknee]

that was at my local BMX track, turned up on the news last night within 15 minutes of Ride Illawarra's segment on getting a mountainbiking park up here.

On a side note, my mate crashed at that BMX track a few years ago which put him in a Coma for 3 weeks, their arent really any huge jumps...im pretty sure the main cause of crashes is Wind down there...it is situated right next to an air strip and at the bottom of a *gully* that forces excessive winds down there

I think the jump she crashed on was straight out of the start gate and has been changed a long time ago , apparently it was a bit tricky ( according to a mate who used to ride it back in 95 ) .

And to brumby jack , i am of similar opinion as you and like to think i would not sue as i think it has gone to far all the sueing crap , but if my daughter was crippled for life and i could not support her and make her life reasonable i would surely have to consider sueing for some kind of financal assistance .

 

[toodles]

Funnily enough, I had a mate in high school who we nicknamed Comaboy (cos we're sensitive ) after he crashed in a BMX race at Browns Plains face first into a double. Despite wearing a fullface, which was utterly destroyed, he went into a coma for just less than 2 weeks. Luckily, he recovered and awoke, despite permanently talking a bit slower and suffering some fine motor control issues. I'll see if I can track him down and point him to this thread, but I recall him saying it was nobody's fault but his own.


Actually, I wonder if this case sets a precedent for other lawsuits?

 

[johnny]

Actually, I wonder if this case sets a precedent for other lawsuits?

Yeah I was wondering that myself lastnight. But you'd think that surely some one would've sued a skate park or bike track/jumps somewhere before? Are these laws state or federal (I'm guessing fed).

I pray that they don't start closing down....... Maybe it would be best that newspapers don't print these types of stories, can do without copycat money grabbers!

 

[Cave Dweller]

I pray that they don't start closing down....... Maybe it would be best that newspapers don't print these types of stories, can do without copycat money grabbers!

But what if they are 13 year old copy cat money grabers, that would be ok right

 

[scblack]

Yeah I was wondering that myself lastnight. But you'd think that surely some one would've sued a skate park or bike track/jumps somewhere before? Are these laws state or federal (I'm guessing fed).

I pray that they don't start closing down....... Maybe it would be best that newspapers don't print these types of stories, can do without copycat money grabbers!

I think they're State laws actually - remember that Bob Carr has been trying to limit damages claims for medical indemnity in NSW.

 

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Actually, I wonder if this case sets a precedent for other lawsuits?

The case was heard in the Supreme Court so any case which is heard in a lower court will be bound by the precedent set here. That is not to say that the judgement will be the same but any of the elements which are the same or similar will be considered in light of the judgement of this case.

It's mainly civil precedent. But, yes, NSW has a Civil Liability Act which is aimed at curbing the rising rate of litgation amongst other things. I would have assumed that Section 5L(1) "A person ( "the defendant" ) is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person ( "the plaintiff" ) as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff." would have covered this case but I can't find the full text of the judgement on any databases. I gather it will have a lot to do with the girl's age. If I do manage to find the full text I'll certainly revive this thread and let you all know.

I did manage to find a small report relating to the admission of some evidence into the case in 2003 but the only things included which are worth noting are that she was riding a "type of mountain bike" and it appears that she was wearing an open-face helmet.

I'm not going to get into the debate... i spent half of last year considering very similar conundrums and there's certainly no easy answer... but keep in mind that the reason (i'm almost certain) that the girl was able to sue successfully was because the cost and inconvenience to the club and the council of installing a fence was disproportionate to the gravity of injury which could possibly be sustained. Whilst neither party was directly responsible for the injuries it was in their power to take pre-emptive action to avoid them as the judge deemed such an occurence as "reasonably forseeable".

 

[johnny]

But what if they are 13 year old copy cat money grabers, that would be ok right

Well let's just hope that you never end up involved with running of the juvenile justice system, eh?



I was doing some reading and found this in an article about the McLibel case. I think that it is quite related to the litigation cases that we have been talking about and it goes to the core of the matter of personal responsibility.

The McLibel action nowadays is the least of McDonald's legal worries. It has bigger things to fry as the US federal appeals court opens up the discovery process in obesity litigation. As the trial lawyers say in the US, obesity is the new tobacco.

Now this brings up two related issues. 1) tobacco companies marketing a product that was known to them to be potentially lthal, and sitting on the evidence and latter attempting to destroy/cover up said evidence. Thus encouraging people to potentially and unwittingly commit suicide. remember, back in the 50's-60's it was far from common knowledge that smoking caused cancer, heart disease etc.

Now compare this with the way fast/junk food is marketted today.

First off you have the business criteria of success, large turnover of product, high profit margins and growth. Not a bad or evil thing to aspire to. Secondly you have the product, it's not the worlds healthiest product (looking mostly at McDonalds, KFC and the like) but certainly not going to kill you, and absolutely harmless providing you have relatively sensible dietry habits eg: not eating this shit Morhan Spurlock style. Most people who would be at risk of this behaviour are adults, or are the adults that determine the content of nightly meals (I grew up with a Korean kid whose family would eat Maccas 5 out of seven nightly meals, so it's not an absurd thought).

Then you also have junk food (such as chips, twisties, lollies [nerds, wonkas, M&M's, etc] ice blocks etc) Whilst these products are usually aimed at kids, all levels of society eat them (I'm their fav customer ).

Now take a look at the marketing of these products. The Simpsons are a good looking glass with which to evaluate the levels and targets of marketing these products. I did a content analysis of the Simpsons (all shows, both cable and network) for two weeks, both qualitative and quatitative (what the mean/are, how many there are, respectively) There were four types of ads: Fast/junk food (mostly twisties, hungry jacks and Pizza hut/Dominoes), hair cair products, mobile phone products and Holden Commodore.

This was a pattern that did not deviate for two weeks.

Now if you add the two together: you have a business/marketing premise of sell as much as you can for return is the bottom line. So therefore the ad/marketing campaign will relentlessly reel in potential customers, that's what advertising is, nothing else. Marketing is a process of psychological practices designed to induce an aspiration to gain a specific feel, identity, charactor that is being paired with said product. The latest thing in marketing is called "love marking", it's the addition of emotional content paired with a product.

This makes the methods of marketing synomymous to subliminal advertising (advertising that illicits responses from the audience where the audience is a) unaware of said advertising b)has no method of defence against it. Hunger inducing colours, layout/design of shops is a very mild form of this method. Using pop idols to sell pepsi is probably the most aggrseive. Younger generations hold pop idols in high regard and aspire to their lifestyle/fame/success. Pairing a cola product with this lifestyle and success may be seen as illegitimate being that it did not contribute to said success, but it's altogether argueable.

What you end up with is marketing campaigns which children have no knowledge/defence that sell products that are unhealthy in the big picture. Now it's pretty much a parents legal responsibility to ensure a childs nutritional well being, but another aim of marketing is to instill purchasing behaviour/loyalty. So as a result we may be risking/facilitating new generations of adults with junk purchasing habits, becoming obese, draining the public health system and clogging up courts with litigation.



So, the conundrum: We MUST be responsible for our own dietry habits, that's only comon sense, and I believe a court recently ruled this way when a previous lotto winner attempted to sue Coke and MAccas for his obesity. Yet we also have a marketing machine which uses the strongest tools currently available to persuade behavior and their largest target audience is children.

The two brothers who founded Mcdonalds were the first to use this practice. They realised that 15 cents (the cost of their original burger) was enough for parents to entrust children with, so the young kid got go to the counter and order the meal like a grown up. The kids loved this and became their highest "counter customers". Added to this fact is that where the kids eat, mum and dad eat, thusly doubling their turnover (hamburger joints were until then frequented by teenagers like Big Al's in Happy days. The brothers wanted to steer clear of the troubles this market brings and did away with the parking lot (rollerskate type) service, instituting) the counter. This was the realisation that children generally dictated the families away from home eating habits. Therefore market to the kids and you'll get two adults as well, and the child/food target market was born.

After this marketeers saw these consumer habits stay with the kids as they grew up and sustained into adulthood, and consumer purchasing habits/loyalties was born.

So on one one hand we have to be responsible for our own guts, yet we have people using all the tricks they can to make us eat their stuff (which aint good for you in large doses, but business rules say, you want your customer to be loyal and buy large amounts). Most importantly, the kids are the the best target market.

Responsibility is expected under the greatest pressure and tests. It's as if we're trying to make life hard for ourselves.

Bit of a tangent, I know, but slightly relevant and I'm on holidays with a fucked shoulder and no one to play with.......



Actually Nitwit is on his way over and we're going to watch a documentary on Robert Macnamarra (he was the head of defence during the Cuban Missile Crisis, vietnam war and then headed up the world bank from 1968-81......he's one of my idols )

 

[dilemma]

Wow. What a read. Looks like this thread has stopped spiralling a little bit

About the health care safety net thing. [Please note that I'm saying this without having fully researched it, maybe people might know a little bit more about the actual technicalities about what it used to be like]

As far as I am aware, there was some kind of safety net in place in the early 80s - someone may have touched on it with the person becoming quadriplegic at the beach? May have been Brumby Jack?

This involved the govt giving a $1,000,000 sum to people who were significantly injured, to the point of not being able to live a normal, unassisted life.

In around 1981 or 82, my uncle (then my aunt's boyfriend/father of my cousin) was involved in a car accident that left him a quadriplegic. Fair enough that's a pretty serious injury that left him in hospital for almost a year, with holes drilled into his skull so he could be placed in traction, and flipped from front to back twice a day.

Let me tell you how the accident occured. He was road tripping north with his brother (was early 20s at the time). One day they were completely trashed and after trying to drive, they figured out they weren't in a state to drive and so they picked up a hitch hiker. She was a young woman who told them not to worry, she could do the driving for them. she told them she was 17. It turned out she was 14 years old. She crashed into a tree, and my uncle who was sleeping across the back seat, not wearing a seat belt, broke his back. The others were injured as well but his was the most critical.

Ok, here is a situation where the accident was pretty much completely the fault of the injured parties. Not only had they broken the law, but they were off their heads (alcohol & drugs) as well and let an unlicensed 14 year old drive.

There was no one to sue. They were all at fault. Yet the government had in place a safety net payout which enabled my uncle to receive a payout. I'm not sure how long after the accident he received the money. I'm not sure if there was any kind of court action to receive the payout, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't.

This was a case of stupidity resulting in a life threating and devasting injury. How easy it would have been to say "Sucked in, that's your own fault, suffer the consequences."

Instead, he was awarded a sum of money, albeit from taxpayers' pockets, which enabled him to build a home with wheelchair access, convert his car so he could drive it, get a hoist for the top of the car, start a small business which he was able to operate himself despite his disability and raise his son. (I dont think a million bucks would stretch that far these days )

He campaigned in his local area for disabled facilities to be improved, and I do believe that there is a walking track up a mountain in the central coast area which has been named after him (he has since died) as he lobbied to get disabled access to the coastal lookout.

Before the accident, he was healthy, fit, involved in surf club and local sports. Yes he was going through a time when he was trying to find out where his life was headed and maybe that resulted in some stupid choices. Haven't we all.

What I'm getting at, is that the govt of the time had a safety net in place, out of (can we say the word?) COMPASSION that enabled someone who was injured in an accident which was his own fault, to live a "normal" dignified life.

Hmmm. I wonder if there is any room left in our current system for compassion. I'd be happy for my taxes to be distributed to such a fund. Let's not get started on centrelink/dole payouts here. That's a huge bucket of worms

[Haha no one commented on the girl being from Dapto... local joke I guess... ]

 

[Techno Destructo]

I agree. I would love to take some of the money dumped into the military and possibly other candidates and fix the health system out here, as well as the "safety" net. But that's just off the top of my head with no research.

I've only lived in Australia for 6? maybe 7 years now. I hear that litigation cases like this never used to happen 10 - 15 years ago. Is this true?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Dilemma / johhny / everone else,

I understand what you are saying and im sorry for you uncle, like i am for the 13 year old girl and anyone esle who gets a perminant injury. It sucks and life can suck sometimes.

But, why is the disability pension and access to a public hospital not enough for someone who gets injured through there own actions? Why should they be entitled to $1million through either a government or from sueing? Call me a heartless bastered or whatever but i just can't get my head around people getting large sums of money for there own stupidity, it just defies logic.

While im at it i will let you all know why i get really pissed of at this shit. I had a good friend of mine that was involved in a serious car accident, NOT his own fault. One of my mates died, the other ended up with serious injuries. Im talking about him flying down the road on his jaw, hitting a tree head first. Ended up surviving just, had to have multiple jaw reconstructions and he has a big scar on his throat where the tube was put so he could breath. He got around 180K from that. Totally pathetic IMO that some like my mate gets 180K and some other people who do stupid shit that get themselves injured get paid over $1millon.

 

[Plankosaurus]

I agree. I would love to take some of the money dumped into the military and possibly other candidates and fix the health system out here

dont start that one thats one HELLUVA can of worms

imagine, just for a second, if the billions of dollars that are spent on weapons were actually used for something constructive?

buuuuut like that'll ever happen. they reckon prostitution is the oldest profession, i reckon weapons manufacture is. who came fist, the soldier or the poontang?

 

[scblack]

I agree. I would love to take some of the money dumped into the military and possibly other candidates and fix the health system out here, ?

Quote Posted by 99Coconuts
imagine, just for a second, if the billions of dollars that are spent on weapons were actually used for something constructive?

Yes, we'd all love to leave our country defenceless, and then lose control of the whole place to a foreign power.

Not to mention all the jobs and industry that is supported by this spending.

Not to mention all the training and expertise gained by our military personnel, who then use these skills in the "real" world - the general economy.

 

[Plankosaurus]

Yes, we'd all love to leave our country defenceless, and then lose control of the whole place to a foreign power.

Not to mention all the jobs and industry that is supported by this spending.

Not to mention all the training and expertise gained by our military personnel, who then use these skills in the "real" world - the general economy.

hey hey hey!!! no need to be a realist now, come on

i was talking about worldwide, and i am pretty sure we wont see it happen till we wipe ourselves out. but in any case, i'm not all that keen on a world without military. i like guns too much

 

[scblack]

I've stayed out of this thread as I know nothing about the issue, but I have just one question.

I remember from the judgement somewhere, that the reason for needing compensation was the fact that she was unable to KEEP her jobs.

Why exactly is she unable to KEEP her jobs?

That sounds like she is able to get herself a job reasonably easy enough, but we don't know what sort of jobs. If she's in a normal job, she's been through an interview process, so she can't be too badly brain damaged, to get through screening processes. But what's stopping her KEEPING her jobs.

No-one here can probably answer, and I'm not saying she should not be compensated, but I would like to know why she can't.

 

[johnny]

Dilemma / johhny / everone else,

I understand what you are saying and im sorry for you uncle, like i am for the 13 year old girl and anyone esle who gets a perminant injury. It sucks and life can suck sometimes.


While im at it i will let you all know why i get really pissed of at this shit. I had a good friend of mine that was involved in a serious car accident, NOT his own fault. One of my mates died, the other ended up with serious injuries. Im talking about him flying down the road on his jaw, hitting a tree head first. Ended up surviving just, had to have multiple jaw reconstructions and he has a big scar on his throat where the tube was put so he could breath. He got around 180K from that. Totally pathetic IMO that some like my mate gets 180K and some other people who do stupid shit that get themselves injured get paid over $1millon.

So now you think that others should be in the same screwed up position? If your mates situation is crappy, why would you want other people to be in that position?

Oh, because by your standards they were doing something stupid. Put yourself in a position if you were doing a road gap, got busted up and couldn't move from the neck down. By your logic, it wasn't your fault out of stupidity, but you were taking a risk that you were well aware of. Just for that fact, you now have to live on the bare standard. Do you think disability pensions are going to convert your car, get you a hoist to get in and out of bed, put ramps and a disabled shower in your house, help you find some kind of job or life? I'd be suprised if it does.

But, why is the disability pension and access to a public hospital not enough for someone who gets injured through there own actions? Why should they be entitled to $1million through either a government or from sueing? Call me a heartless bastered or whatever but i just can't get my head around people getting large sums of money for there own stupidity, it just defies logic.

Don't you think those fucked for life are suffering enough for being stupid? Don't you think they regret it and wish to hell that they could walk again, think straight, have thier normal life back? Why do you want them to live on the bare minimum after that as well? Why so harsh to everyone because your mate got it bad?

I would have thought that a bloke like you who generally doesn't seem to wish harm on people would rather see this mistake not occur again and better practices institutionalised?

It seems to me that you're also pissed at the system ,but you're taking that out on the people who use/misuse it instead.