Take a number and wait until you're called.
And I'm prepared to take the blame...
Published on May 3, 2005 By dynamaso In Misc
I’m writing this in response to a number of pieces I’ve read here recently and to a disturbingly increasing amount of media reports about this as well. I want to know where people think personal responsibility stops and where public liability starts?

I believe there are very few instances where personal responsibility should stop. The way I see it, if I trip over the crack in the sidewalk or spill a hot beverage on myself, I am the only person responsible. If I drive my car into oncoming traffic because the sun has reflected off a building into my eyes, well, it is an accident but no one is to blame, unless you want to blame the sun. It is an Act of Nature that has caused the accident. The people who own the building or clean the windows can’t be held responsible. Accidents do happen. And when accidents happen, sometimes people get hurt. It is unfortunate or, in some cases, even tragic, but it is reality. Some of the suits I’ve read about recently are anything but realistic. Yet people still pursue them and judges still let them be heard.

How about if I were in my own kitchen and my wife had made a nice hot cup of coffee, which I then spilt over myself? I’m not going to sue her, am I? She knows I’m an adult and I should be able to hold a hot cup of coffee. Her trusting in this is preconceived, sure, but putting trust in pretty much anything or anyone involves having some sort of preconceived notion of how they will behave. (As an aside, I also am acutely aware of how clumsy I can be, so I am more than willing to say ‘Oops’, apply some antiseptic cream to the burn and clean up the mess).

Personal responsibility has eroded to the point in Australia where events such as school fetes and dog shows are unable to go ahead because the insurance costs are just too much for the organisers to cover. Most of the events hurt by this are usually community or charity events. The other group hit hardest are the small sports clubs. These clubs usually rely on nominal participation fees and are most often formed for the benefit of local children. With both media and politics focussing on obesity levels, particularly concerning children, this situation only highlights the inadequateness of our local, state and national authorities in not doing anything about stemming the flow of ridiculous suits.

Another option, as far as I can see, is for the government to instigate a public-funded Department of Blame, whose sole role is to take the blame for anything falling outside the brackets of personal responsibility. I envisage roaming Blame Clerks, who can be called to contentious mishaps and make on-the-spot decisions based on immediate facts. As I see it, there are only three decisions the incident can be decided against. The first is ‘No-ones Fault’, the second is ‘Individual Fault’ and the third is ‘Department of Blame’s Fault’. The only time a person can pursue a suit is if the incident is deemed the ‘Department of Blame’s Fault’.

The third and final option, in my opinion, is for someone to take the blame. For everything. Always. Sure, the first few people who sue will get something, but every one after won’t see a red cent. Hopefully, the world will forget one person is to blame and start taking their personal responsibility seriously. So with this in mind, I volunteer myself. I’ve even got my tag line prepared - “Oops, sorry, it will happen again.”


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 10, 2005
We have become so obsessed with trying to blame someone else, trying to seek revenge that we can't face the idea that sometimes no one is to blame


Exactly. I couldn't have said it better.

If you don't want a crap media, stop watching ACA, don't buy the Courier Mail and don't listen to Lawsy...
Ray was a good journo until he realised that he was going to make more money doing Channel Nine stuff


I agree completely. My wife has to watch ACA (she is a commercial radio news journalist whose demographic is very similar to ACA's). I refuse to watch it and she sits through it cringing and gagging. But don't get me started on what is very loosely called 'news' these days. It is going to be the subject of an article I am currently working on.

There's a case for personal responsibility on a grand scale


Maybe this is why a lot of news these days has been sanitised to the point of triteness, just so no one feels like they could be or are personally responsible for all the crazy goings on in the world.

Thanks so much for your comments.
on May 10, 2005
Mano,

Thanks for the link. The reviewers gave me a bit of an idea of what the book is about. I do not consider myself a victim, never have, but I appreciate what you're saying. Thanks again.
on May 10, 2005
hi ya maso nice to see ya,, now to adress your inquiry.

You have a level clear thinking mind, you see personal responsibility as "who you are" many others don't they see litagation as there private lottery, a way to easy riches.
on May 10, 2005
Modman,

Nice to see you too and thanks for the compliment.

they see litagation as there private lottery, a way to easy riches.


I think most who see litagation this way are not aware of the processes required to get their pot of gold. All they hear about is the end result of someone else's suit. It can take many years before any financial gain happens. Of course, by the time most realise this, their suit is already under way and clogging up the machineries of justice.
on May 10, 2005
Did you know that companies offer wedding insurance to couples? For around $250 to $1,000 you can cover your ass in case some guest drinks, drives, and hurts another person; trips and falls and breaks a toenail; or if Mother Nature decides to rain on your parade and you weren't smart enough to have a backup plan that included a roof.

Not to lay blame further, but I will: Shouldn't judges be the ones weeding out frivolous lawsuits from the system? And at home, shouldn't parents be enforcing personal responsibility instead of taking out their embarrassment on other parties? If your kid falls off a slide at the city park, you don't sue the city; until s/he's 18, you're responsible for that kid. I fail to see how they're setting a good example for their children, and I fail to see how judges are setting a good example for citizens of my country.

But the hardest question is, how do you reform society?



-A.
on May 10, 2005
19 by dynamaso
Tuesday, May 10, 2005


think most who see litagation this way are not aware of the processes required to get their pot of gold. All they hear about is the end result of someone else's suit. It can take many years before any financial gain happens. Of course, by the time most realise this, their suit is already under way and clogging up the machineries of justice.


I think most greedy frackers are shooting for the fast settlement , the go away you bother me money.
on May 10, 2005
And a lot of large organisations are their own worst enemies in this respect because, rather than fight the suits, they go for the out of court settlement just to get the monkeys off their backs.
on May 11, 2005
Anglo,

The wedding insurance idea is nothing but a money-making scam. Do you know if anyone has actually taken out a policy?

I believe judges, lawyers, the media, and the public at large should all take some responsibility to ensure our legal systems are not bogged down with unnecessary cased. I believe it all started when 'precendent' became more important than common sense.

Thanks for your comments.
on May 17, 2005
The wedding insurance idea is nothing but a money-making scam. Do you know if anyone has actually taken out a policy?


Not personally, but while I was engaged I frequented theknot.com and there were tons of brides who did it. When you're spending $30k on a wedding, a paltry couple hundred is just a drop in the bucket. (Not my style, in case that wasn't obvious.)

Le sigh, eh?

-A.
on May 18, 2005
$30k! Oh my god, if I had that sort of money to spend, the last thing I would spend it on is a wedding. My wife agrees with me on this too. I think we spend a grand total of $600, half of which was for the clothes we wore on the day. We still think our wedding was the best we'd ever been too, even if we do say so ourselves.

Incidentally, did you hear about the couple who got married over your way and had local businesses sponsor most of the wedding. The couple had to invite the sponsors to the wedding, make sure the sponsors were thanked in the speeches and have a place card listing all the sponsors for each guest. It is the first truly commercial wedding ever. Bizzaro...
on May 18, 2005
Incidentally, did you hear about the couple who got married over your way and had local businesses sponsor most of the wedding.


Ha haha hahahaha! And I call myself a freeloader. I suppose they wrote on their invitation, "No gifts--just money, please."

-A.
on May 18, 2005
Apparently, there was an 'approved' sponsors gift list, and any guest buying a gift at these outlets received a discount. How crazy is that?
on May 18, 2005
I don't think many of us would find today's suits entertaining unless the losers were punished in some publically humiliating way.


Are you kidding? If they weren't entertaining the media wouldn't bother expending so much coverage on them. The news stopped being about news a long time ago. Now they just fluff in a little news in between entertainment. But I think the public humiliation idea would really tickle the media's fancy.
on May 18, 2005
Mason,

The news stopped being about news a long time ago


And herein lies the problem. This has been a beef of mine for ages. As Champas rightly points out, the media is only responding the the wants of the general public, so the more fluff, the better, it seems. I can't and don't 'blame' the media as I understand the buzz of having a story i KNOW people are going to like, even if I think it is a crock of crap. As a friend of mine said recently '...and crap news is better than no news at all.' At the time, I laughed. Now, I'm not so sure.

As for public humiliation, wasn't there a post here recently speculating about what it might be like to reintroduce stocks in public places for petty criminals etc, instead of clogging up the penal system? I think it is a fine idea and would have anyone contemplating a suit or any illegal action actually thinking about it before they did it. And getting people to think first has got to be a step in the right direction

Thanks for your input.
2 Pages1 2