What Will Come of The Protests?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Aaactually, it was a case of my boss telling me to take all the usual safety precautions, and me ignoring him.

Yeah, I know.

so... why'd you do it? did you think ignoring the safety precautions was the best way to succeed in your job despite the verbal warning, or were you just risking your life for funsies?

[Randomizer]

I've seen enough workers go up onto a roof using too short a ladder for the job just because they don't want to get the longer ladder off the truck.

[Jerakeen]

Yes, the kids who work at the local supermarket used to upend shopping carts and use them as ladders to reach the top shelves. They don't do that anymore, because in Ontario both the employee and the employer are subject to hefty fines if caught. This motivates the employer to provide more stepladders and better training, even if it can't entirely overcome teenage stupidity.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Probably for the same reason they awarded 1 million dollars to the gal who put a cup of hot coffee between her legs and got burned when it spilled. A company goes through a great deal of expense doing everything it can too comply with regulations and to avert the liability of poor product quality, and it gains them nothing.

I hate when people bring this case up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit. In actuality, it was anything but frivolous.

Quote:

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

If I buy a cup of coffee, I do not have the expectation that spilling it will result in third-degree burns. The coffee was, simply put, much too hot.

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

did you think ignoring the safety precautions was the best way to succeed in your job despite the verbal warning, or were you just risking your life for funsies?

I think that it is human nature to take the easiest path available even if it is not the safest. I know I am guilty.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

But just to stress: these were all things I chose to do myself, and not anything some boss told me. And while I'd like to think I know the limits of those machines, if I made a mistake, it would be my own bloody fault.

sounds to me like your boss didn't tell you because your boss didn't need to tell you

Yep. I've done things and been yelled at for doing them in stupid, unsafe ways. Sometimes I'm[/i[ in an unnecessary hurry, or lazy, or distracted.

—Alorael, who didn't learn his lesson from using ladders. He did learn it, at least a bit, by refusing to use a ladder to get chemicals and dumping two liters of blue dye on himself.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Tatters and Tears

—Alorael, who didn't learn his lesson from using ladders. He did learn it, at least a bit, by refusing to use a ladder to get chemicals and dumping two liters of blue dye on himself.

Now that was not an image I needed in my brain as I start to eat lunch!

[Alorael at Large]

I'm not sure why. Having a blue tinge for a few days isn't particularly nauseating.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think he's especially more or less appetizing dyed. But he'll admit that everyone knows the delicious color is red.

[Student of Trinity]

This reminds me of one of the bizarre weapons briefly wielded by Cugel the Clever: the 'tube that projects blue condensate'.

[Men are from Slars]

What Tyranicus said: the famous coffee lawsuit was not frivolous. The coffee was WAY, WAY hotter than you'd ever expect a hot beverage to be, especially a hot beverage that is specifically tailor made to be placed in a fast-moving vehicle, as the coffee in quesiton was -- they heated it more than their dine-in coffee to an absurd degree.

 

As far as the ladder goes: Harehunter, why are you complaining about the jury's verdict if you don't even know why they gave the decision they did? Can you at least tell us when this happened and what company was involved, so we can look up the case? I find it really insulting to say "here's this thing that supposedly proves my point, but I can't give you any details about it!"

[Necris Omega]

Originally Posted By: Tatters and Tears

—Alorael, who didn't learn his lesson from using ladders. He did learn it, at least a bit, by refusing to use a ladder to get chemicals and dumping two liters of blue dye on himself.

So... should we go with the Blue Man Group reference, the Eiffel 65 Blue reference, or the Avatar reference?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

Originally Posted By: Tatters and Tears

—Alorael, who didn't learn his lesson from using ladders. He did learn it, at least a bit, by refusing to use a ladder to get chemicals and dumping two liters of blue dye on himself.

So... should we go with the Blue Man Group reference, the Eiffel 65 Blue reference, or the Avatar reference?

Oh, Avatar all the way. Sniper rifles are kind of like bows.

[Dikiyoba]

The Na'vi aren't scary, though. A blue-tinged Alorael is frankly terrifying. (And eating lunch while terrified is unpleasant in the best of circumstances and brings back awful memories of high school cafeteria food in the worst.)

 

Dikiyoba doesn't know why a blue Alorael would be that scary. A blue Tyranicus isn't scary, and Tyranicus is far more likely to go Nethergate and charge at you naked and berserk.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

Originally Posted By: Tatters and Tears

—Alorael, who didn't learn his lesson from using ladders. He did learn it, at least a bit, by refusing to use a ladder to get chemicals and dumping two liters of blue dye on himself.

So... should we go with the Blue Man Group reference, the Eiffel 65 Blue reference, or the Avatar reference?

I keep thinking of a giant Smurf especailly because they had that reference on Castle last season with an exploding dye pack.

[Alorael at Large]

Skin is not very absorbent and die takes a while to really get vibrant. I turned more of a pale, vaguely argyria-like blue-gray for a couple of days.

 

—Alorael, who got asked if he was feeling okay, asked how he turned blue, and ignored in about equal measures by friends and acquaintances. Strangers tended not to say anything. It's not acceptable to point out unusual skin colors.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

This reminds me of one of the bizarre weapons briefly wielded by Cugel the Clever: the 'tube that projects blue condensate'.

blue concentrate ( )/

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

so... why'd you do it? did you think ignoring the safety precautions was the best way to succeed in your job despite the verbal warning, or were you just risking your life for funsies?

Basically what Randomizer and Alorael said. Making those shortcuts had an acceptable level of risk (at least in my mind back then), and they made a tedious job go quicker. For what it's worth, moving the cherry picker while the boom was extended has about the same level of risk as standing on the top step of a stepladder. I made sure to lower myself whenever I needed to move more than a few feet, or move over uneven ground. Still, a paranoid person would want to account for the "unknown unknowns". As for standing in the shovel of a Bobcat... not really risky at all. The blanket "thou shall not stand in the bucket" stops people from riding in the bucket, or raising the bucket while someone is in it. I did neither of those things, so I don't see any other risk possibilities. The older and (slightly) wiser me would be a bit more careful with the cherry picker, but in all honesty I'd still use the Bobcat as a work platform whenever convenient.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

This reminds me of one of the bizarre weapons briefly wielded by Cugel the Clever: the 'tube that projects blue condensate'.

blue concentrate ( )/

Ach, of course. This was a sort of pre-typo. I did mean to type 'condensate', because I was misremembering the phrase; but I use the term 'condensate' a lot in my work, so it's clear why my brain made that particular slip. I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often, but maybe it does and I just don't notice.

[Lilith]

i guess you weren't... concentrating

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

What Tyranicus said: the famous coffee lawsuit was not frivolous. The coffee was WAY, WAY hotter than you'd ever expect a hot beverage to be, especially a hot beverage that is specifically tailor made to be placed in a fast-moving vehicle, as the coffee in quesiton was -- they heated it more than their dine-in coffee to an absurd degree.

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

As far as the ladder goes: Harehunter, why are you complaining about the jury's verdict if you don't even know why they gave the decision they did? Can you at least tell us when this happened and what company was involved, so we can look up the case? I find it really insulting to say "here's this thing that supposedly proves my point, but I can't give you any details about it!"

The company was Keller Ladders, which is now owned by a different corporation, and the lawsuit in question was over 20 years ago. My information came from one of the engineers who had direct knowledge of the case. However, being in the middle of a major systems implementation at that time, no further details were given.

To Student of Trinity: I must resist looking at your signature line; it triggers a thought that I must not express.

[Student of Trinity]

Eh, it was time for a new one.

[Alorael at Large]

Oh brave new forum, that hath such signatures in it!

 

—Alorael, who looked up suits against Keller Ladders. There are, unsurprisingly, many. Most of the cases were dismissed.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Epiphany Without Borders

—Alorael, who looked up suits against Keller Ladders. There are, unsurprisingly, many. Most of the cases were dismissed.

Thank you Alorael for the research I did not have time to do; I've been in 'crisis mode' all last week.

As you pointed out, at least with some products, there are a large number of law suits that should not have been filed. In most states, the cost of defending against frivolous lawsuits is borne by the defendant. This year, Texas passed a tort reform bill whereby the loser pays. This is intended to make litigation attorneys perform their due diligence, so that those only those complaints that are legitimate can be filed. This has the added benefit of reducing the court docket so that those legitimate cases can be tried sooner. It also reduces the expenses paid to defense attorneys, which is why more businesses are moving to the Lone Star State. And by the number of cars with out-of-state dealership stickers and Texas plates, so are a lot of other people.

I can hear the buzzing now about how such legislation hurts the common man, and denies him his 'right' to sue. I will state again, not all lawsuits are frivolous, but too many are. They clog the courts, preventing legitimate complaints from being heard in a timely fashion, they are expensive to the the taxpayers, and they dissuade companies from expanding and creating more jobs. Tort law is much too valuable to be abused to the point that it defeats its own purpose.

[Alorael at Large]

It's not every citizen's duty to know the difference between a legitimate tort claim and a bad one. I'd actually be very leery of any system in which the lawyers aren't also on the hook, because otherwise they still lack disincentive to filing frivolous claims.

 

—Alorael, who could see adding another step in which the validity of the claim is evaluated. There's a difference between not finding for the claimant and finding that the claimant should have known better and wasted everyone's time.

[Harehunter]

—Alorael, again you astutely hit upon the fine line between cases; a legitimate suit that loses, and a frivolous suit that has no merit. In the first case, loser-pays is a bad option. The loser-pays rule should only be applied if a case is presented that has no merit. According to this Legal Opinion Letter , the Texas tort reform act does not adhere strictly to the loser-pays option. If I understand the article correctly, it is up to the determination of the judge if such recompense is warranted. This is as it should be; don't punish the loss of a valid complainant, just make sure the claim is valid before bringing the suit.

[Randomizer]

Even if you have a legitimate case, lawyers won't take it if there isn't enough economic value, money for them. I know from experience on a medical malpractice case where no one wanted to take it even though there was no doubt about the guilt because the potential damages weren't enough to justify the time and expenses to file.

[Alorael at Large]

Actually, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the implications of what I said. What does a legitimate, losing claim mean? That you and your lawyer are forgiven for not knowing that you were wrong, although you could have known? That the judge disagrees with the jury? That the case is unclear and came down to a judicial coin flip?

 

—Alorael, who doesn't like reminders that justice is, in practice, a messy process with absurdities aplenty.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Logicist

Actually, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the implications of what I said. What does a legitimate, losing claim mean? That you and your lawyer are forgiven for not knowing that you were wrong, although you could have known? That the judge disagrees with the jury? That the case is unclear and came down to a judicial coin flip?

—Alorael, who doesn't like reminders that justice is, in practice, a messy process with absurdities aplenty.

the standard for this sort of thing, as i understand it, is usually that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant areas of law could sincerely believe that their claim was valid. which is pretty subjective but probably about the best you can do

[Harehunter]

Here is an interesting example. A woman is suing an airline because the turbulence experienced on that flight caused her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). On just that much information, can you tell if her case has merit, or is it frivolous?

 

Here is the story.

 

Upon hearing her live interview, I learned a few things. It was on a short flight from College Station, Tx to Houston; about a two hour drive. That means she was on a small, commuter plane, on a flight of expected duration of 20 minutes or so. There were thunderstorms in the area, not uncommon, so turbulence would have been a problem. I've been in a puddle-hopper during a storm, and it is not an experience I would recommend. To make things worse, the weather caused air traffic to be backed up, making the flight take almost two hours. Is it reasonable that the plaintiff could have suffered from PTSD under those circumstances? Or is this suit baseless, and thereby frivolous?

 

I am no psychologist, but what she described as her symptoms sounded like PTSD to me. That indicates to me that she does have a basis to sue for damages. Of course, if I were a juror on the case, I would be required to listen to the opinions of her doctor, and the medical advisors for the defense. The part of this case that I cannot figure out is - What liability does the airline company bear? What should they have done to prevent this injury?

 

Once in the air, the pilots have to fly the course given them from air traffic controllers, or risk a mid-air collision; very bad. They do request alterations to avoid areas of the worst turbulence, but there is no way to avoid it all. And once again, the pilots have to take their instructions to land from the ATC's. I can see no liability on their part. Should the airline have cancelled the flight? Only one person, of fewer than 100, suffered this injury. And there was no way of telling that this woman was susceptible to PTSD from such a circumstance. What did the airline do to willfully cause this injury?

 

Nothing that I can see. But clearly there has been an injury. If negligence cannot be found on the part of the defendant, do they still bear a liability for damages? I really don't know, but I would love to hear it explained to me, sitting in the jury box.

[keira]

That's stupid. in our day and age they knew the weather would suck (even if there's no announcement by the airline, there's plenty of televisions in airports), and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to figure out that bad weather might cause turbulence. Not to mention, nobody made her fly on that plane. If you aren't willing to bear the risks of flying (or the naked machines and optional colonoscopy), then don't fly. Seriously, a 20-minute flight? After all the taxiing and boarding and whatnot, you'd be better off driving anyway.

[Alorael at Large]

If that 20 minute flight took two hours, something went very, very wrong. The question isn't whether the flight was terrible; it was. The question is whether the airline should have known better than to take off. For that, you need air traffic experts.

 

—Alorael, whose guess is that the case will be resolved in the airline's favor. It was probably terrible, and if they knew it would be they wouldn't have taken off. Flight crews don't like risking death and airlines don't like risking either lawsuits or their planes.

[Harehunter]

—Alorael, I suspect you are right. Considering the large number of people who fly, experience severe turbulence, and suffer no long term ill-effects, the risk would be miniscule. Just wondering though, if this scenario fits the description of a justifiable suit with little chance of success.

 

My son-in-law is an Air Traffic Controller, and he explained to me that even one violation of safety standards could mean losing their job and their certification. Even breaking the separation rule of two miles (I think that is right) by 100 yards is grounds for termination; therefore they try to keep their planes 2.5 miles apart.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Brother, can you spare a kWh?

If that 20 minute flight took two hours, something went very, very wrong. The question isn't whether the flight was terrible; it was. The question is whether the airline should have known better than to take off. For that, you need air traffic experts.

—Alorael, whose guess is that the case will be resolved in the airline's favor. It was probably terrible, and if they knew it would be they wouldn't have taken off. Flight crews don't like risking death and airlines don't like risking either lawsuits or their planes.

there are legal scholars who argue for strict liability in cases like this, on the grounds that if a corporation is liable for all harm caused by its product or service, it'll do whatever it takes to make its product or service as safe as possible, rather than doing whatever it takes to make it look like it's doing whatever it takes

that's not generally what the law is at the moment, though

[Kelandon]

You could do a "loser pays if the case is dismissed" system; if it makes it all the way to trial (heck, if it makes it all the way to discovery), at least somebody who was familiar with the relevant law and wasn't counsel to either of the parties, namely the judge, thought that it wasn't frivolous. But the thing is, there's not a lot of expense incurred in getting a case dismissed.

 

People have already done a fair amount of thinking about judicial economy and burden on the courts. That's why there are plenty of opportunities for the case to die before discovery (dismissal) and before trial (summary judgment).

 

I suppose it's possible that judges are exercising excessive discretion in letting frivolous lawsuits not be dismissed, or that the sheer volume of lawsuits getting dismissed is clogging the courts in itself, but that seems unlikely on the face of it. To solve the former, you'd just have to get judges to change their behavior. Only in the case of the latter would you need to change the rules. At that point, it becomes an empirical question.

 

Outside the realm of tort law, which is mostly enforced by the states, the federal system is getting clogged for a reason totally independent of the number of lawsuits. This president, and to a great degree the previous one, has had a terrible record on nominating judges for empty seats in a timely manner, and Congress has, for a couple of decades now, grown worse and worse about confirming them (or even rejecting them — they just hang in limbo). Some small steps have been taken recently, but as far as I know, it's still not enough.

[Alorael at Large]

I'd say the case is definitely reasonable. I have no idea what the criteria for deciding whether or not a plane should take off are; I'm not an air traffic controller or pilot. Flying in a storm like that looks potentially bad to me, and I'll leave it to the experts and expert witnesses to sort out the specifics of the case.

 

—Alorael, who understands the reasoning behind strict liability. The problem is when a service is inherently risky, and flight is. Eventually lawsuits become disincentive to provide a very important service. The safest way to fly is to take a bus, after all.

[Skwish-E]

Originally Posted By: Brother, can you spare a kWh?

... The safest way to fly is to take a bus, after all.

You got statistics to back that up? I'd say probably the other way around is the case. Of course, I could just be a shill for the airlines...

[Alorael at Large]

By time, buses are safer. By distance, planes are safer. (Quoth Wikipedia, although its cited source doesn't look all that authoritative)

 

But that's not really what I meant. The only way to be absolutely safe in the air is to not be in the air. It's not the airlines' problem if you have a bus accident; that's the bus company's fault. Too many lawsuits make all commercial transportation impossible.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think that's a major risk. It is a risk, though. Is it worth making air travel more unreliable and more expensive to minimize the long tail of risk?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Originally Posted By: Brother, can you spare a kWh?

... The safest way to fly is to take a bus, after all.

 

You got statistics to back that up? I'd say probably the other way around is the case. Of course, I could just be a shill for the airlines...

It depends upon the company. There are a few bus companies in the southwestern United States with horrible safety records due to bad drivers and failure to maintain their buses. Then you have the quote from Rainman about Quantas Airlines never having a crash.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

there are legal scholars who argue for strict liability in cases like this, on the grounds that if a corporation is liable for all harm caused by its product or service, it'll do whatever it takes to make its product or service as safe as possible [...]

Wouldn't this just discourage businesses from providing products or services that are used in inherently risky situations? I wouldn't want to start a company that sold crampons or firefighting uniforms or defibrillators if I could be held liable every time someone using my product died.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Wouldn't this just discourage businesses from providing products or services that are used in inherently risky situations? I wouldn't want to start a company that sold crampons or firefighting uniforms or defibrillators if I could be held liable every time someone using my product died.

if a service is so inherently risky that the cost of fairly compensating everyone who's harmed by it outweighs the profit that can be made by providing it, i think there's a good case to be made that that service shouldn't be provided

and even in situations where strict liability applies, there are exceptions made for when the use of the product or service has no causal connection to the harm

[Alorael at Large]

If people are willing to pay for it knowing the risks, there's also a case the other way.

 

Dinti, I don't think your examples work quite right. The crampons have to fail for them to be the cause, and that's both very hard to prove and very unlikely: climber error is a bigger problem. Firefighting uniforms are only rated for a certain level of heat and fire, so you avoid liability for firefighters who die when conditions exceed their equipment. Defibrillators are, again, really only the problem if they don't work and they should, but needing a defibrillator is already bad. You'd have to demonstrate that the defibrillators are performing worse than they should.

 

—Alorael, who thinks transportation carries a unique risk in that it is necessarily dangerous, there is no tolerable loss, and there is no way to limit liability by design. Fortunately, the liability isn't chilling.

[Dintiradan]

On further reading, it seems I'm misunderstanding strict liability. I didn't know defendants could "raise a defense of absence of fault" (thanks, Wikipedia). What confused me was that in the case of strict liability, prosecutors don't have to prove fault. Thus, I erroneously assumed fault wasn't a factor in the case of strict liability.

 

I'll shut up now and leave lawyering to the lawyers.

[Skwish-E]

Drat, there goes my idea of a cobra petting zoo.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Drat, there goes my idea of a cobra petting zoo.

Oh, I always wanted to go to one of those.

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Drat, there goes my idea of a cobra petting zoo.

Oh, I always wanted to go to one of those.

Agreed, they're so cuddable, I just wanna hug 'em all!

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Drat, there goes my idea of a cobra petting zoo.

I guess you'll have to use tarantulas then, or maybe komodo dragons.

[Harehunter]

Forgive my failing memory, but what species of spider is the origin of the Spiderweb logo?

[Lilith]

some kind of tarantula