It's interesting that the person has to be an idiot in every sentence he's mentioned. I'm sure you've never tripped and fallen. But I would be hasty to call YOU an idiot. [EDIT: Not you snowy, or mal.. you posted while I was typing
]
Quote:
My opinion there is that safety is a PERSONAL responsibility. Accidents do happen, but for the most part... Dont want to get hurt? Use your fucking head!
At the root of this (and a much more serious problem) is that not only do people not want to be responsible for their actions, they also don't want to think.
Why else would you sue someone for essentially not thinking for you?
I wish society would realize that not thinking for yourself, and giving that responsibility to the government is only going to destroy the chances for self thought and freedom for generations to come...
|
You're preaching to the choir. I think a lack of personal responsibility is the largest problem today. Parents and teachers blaming music and video games for violent children. Violent children blaming bad parenting and horrible schools. Parents suing a child's school because their child did something against the rules.
However, this is one of the cases where you really can't tell. The longest "article" I can even find on this "news" is a few paragraphs. Was this an official campsite? Was he just out in the woods? Why has he filed against the US Government and not the Oregon State Government? Or the park? Why does he feel that they are responsible? There's a lot of unanswered questions.
My argument from a legal standpoint is that there is a reasonable expectation of safety when using government sponsored or funded facilities. While I agree that safety is a personal responsibility, that only goes so far.
If you were driving along a federally maintained highway at the posted speed limit and all of a sudden there was an enormous 8 foot pothole that totalled your car, would you not feel that the government had been liable for not properly reinforcing the road? You could have slowed down, but a speed limit sign has been endorsed by traffic engineers as a "safe" speed for that stretch of road.
You expect that the forces under the governments control (not acts of God, emergenices, etc) will be performed correctly and safely, and therefore you a reasonable expectation of safety. If a national disaster were to occur and it was demonstrable that despite the government's best efforts the event was unpreventable, then they would not be liable.
Similarly, if the government (Probably the US Government, if it's a National Park) has provided a "safe" campsite with "safe" fire pits and designated "safe" tent placement areas, one could strongly argue that a reasonable person assumes that other assurances have been made to protect your safety (like warnings of some sort regarding a cliff).
I'm only presenting what I believe the lawyer will also present, and I do not feel that it is frivolous.