2006-08-27 16:16:52 · 7 answers · asked by viewAskew 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Blood sucking, litigation lawyers found a way to get their grubby paws into some deep pockets.
The demise of "Assume the Risk" went out the door with 'personal responsibility' and 'consequences for your actions'.
Manufacturers now find themselves in a position of manufacturing "Idiot Proof" products.
You drive drunk, you run over your neighbor - no problem - you sue the bartender who served you the liquor.
And the best one in a while, you buy a cup of hot coffee at the drive thru window - you put the paper cup (full of hot coffee) IN YOUR LAP AND DRIVE AWAY. When it inevitably spills all over your crotch, no problem - sue McDonald's -AND WIN!
It's pathetic and getting worse. We need judges with just a smidgen of common sense to throw these bull**** cases the hell out of court and fine the greedy lawyers who bring them in ! I'll bet that would free up the court system for more legitimate cases. Unfortunately, it'll never happen - the foxes are guarding the hen houses.
2006-08-27 16:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Assumption of Risk" is a doctrine alive and well in all 50 states. But it does not mean what you might think.
This doctrine is a defense to a negligence or strict liability cause of action. In order to prove this defense, you (usually) have to prove that the plaintiff (claimant) knew of the alleged defect, understood the specific risk, and specifically acted with such knowledge and understanding.
For example, if someone climbs a ladder, one could say that they assume the risk of falling off. But that is not the case. It would only be a defense if the plaintiff knew of the danger, knew how the ladder was defective, and acted anyway.
In any event, assumption of risk can almost never be proven.
Similarly, "misuse" of a product can almost never be shown by the defendant. You might thnink that misuse means using a product in a manner not intended (or even warned against) by the manufacturer. But it is not. Misuse of a product is using a product in a manner neither indended NOR forseeable by the manufacturer.
The example (real life) in many law school text books, is a person who used a lawnmower (power) as a hedge clipper. While it may be stupid (ruled the court), it was forseeable that consumers would use their lawnmowers in this fashion. Therefore, the use may be negligenct, but it is not misuse of the product.
It all comes down to this ... the courts are trying to keep the courthouse doors open to plaintiffs --- regardless of how ridiculous their claims.
2006-08-27 16:38:03 · answer #2 · answered by robert_dod 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree with what your saying 100%, but just as too many really odd court rulings flushed that concept; also don't want to see too many odd court rulings bring back the day when companies can sell you any defected thing. better laws, better judges and many more people that will assume consequences for reasonable risks.
2006-08-27 16:36:16 · answer #3 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too many people sewed for nonsence and stupid judges granted them their cash.
2006-08-27 16:18:15 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you just killed the "assumed intelligence" theory.
2006-08-27 16:19:14 · answer #5 · answered by sikn_shadow_420 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I didn't know it was missing!
2006-08-27 16:20:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know....but if you push it in my face, i'll sue! haha
2006-08-27 16:19:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋