Time to value common sense

[CliveH]

I certainly think this Bill has merit - well done to Norman Baker for trying to introduce some sense. This from Yahoo News;-

 

 

 

Liberal Democrat Norman Baker MP sets out the case for his Personal Responsibility Bill, which is being introduced in the Commons on Wednesday.

 

"I am introducing the Personal Responsibility Bill. The aim of this Bill is simple: it is to place upon all of us as individuals a greater responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

 

The value placed by society on someone having common sense and being accountable for their actions is, in my view, too small. Taking responsibility for our own actions is of the utmost importance, and this should be reflected in legislation and then applied by the courts. The aim of this Bill is to recognise this specifically in the area of recovering compensation for personal injuries.

 

My Bill would do this by making two reforms. In the workplace, employers are legally obliged to provide a safe working environment for their workers. This is quite correct and prevents workers being exposed to dangerous situations and working practices.

 

However, this legislation should not exist to compensate people in situations where they could have avoided harm simply by exercising some common sense. My Bill proposes to amend the law to prevent the imposition of liability on an employer where harm to a person could have been averted by the exercise of common sense by that person.

 

Moreover, in personal injury cases, where the claimant is deemed to have contributed to the harm suffered, the amount of damages recoverable by the claimant is reduced proportionately by the amount of the harm for which they were responsible. So if a person is judged to be 40 per cent responsible for an incident which causes harm to them, they will only receive 60 per cent of the compensation that they would normally receive.

 

However, in a situation where an incident could have been avoided by the claimant exercising their common sense then there should be no compensation awarded to that claimant. My Bill proposes an amendment to the law to this effect.

 

This Bill is not designed to prevent people claiming compensation who have been injured through no fault of their own, but will aim to prevent ridiculous claims such as people suing for falling out of a window when under the influence of alcohol or for injuries suffered when attempting to board a moving bus.

 

We must all be responsible for our own actions. I believe that these proposals, if enacted, would reduce the numbers of unmeritorious personal injury claims by encouraging people to take greater responsibility for their actions. This is an important step to increasing civic responsibilities more widely, and is a vital part of a much-needed progression towards valuing civil liberties, rights and responsibilities more throughout society."

 

[pkc]

Gets my vote.

So reports of it's demise were exaggerated?

 

Regards PKC.

[Guest Tracker]

I agree in principle but I can see the lawyers making a fortune over the very definition of what is common sense.

 

I have long thought that we need a bill of responsibilities in this country to go hand in hand with the bill of rights as to have a well balanced society surely you can't have one without the other?

 

How do you define common sense specifically enough to cover every situation and when does a lack of foresight, aka lack of common sense, split from a lack of protection?

 

Maybe we could start with taking away the signs on river banks that say 'Danger deep water' or on cliff tops that say 'Danger steep drop' or at level crossings that say 'Beware of trains'?

[CliveH]

Not sure about that PKC!

 

But I do think that common sense is being ignored such that really stupid cases wind up in the compensation courts.

 

Best one of course is the case where a lady successfully sued McDonalds for serving Coffee too hot. This lead to McDonalds having to have warning signs saying that their hot coffee was.... errrrrrr! - Hot!

 

So stupid was this that each year on the web we have the "Stella" awards named after the woman who sued McDonalds for serving hot coffee

 

............................

 

The 2009 Stella Awards Reveals Most Shocking US Lawsuits

 

This week at the annual Stella Awards, some of the most frivolous and shocking lawsuits have been revealed to the public. It is worth mentioning that Stella Awards is given each year to those who file outrageous lawsuits.

 

The award was named after Stella Liebeck, a woman who in 1992 sued McDonalds for delivering a very hot coffee which she spilled onto her lap and had three degree burns. She won the lawsuit and was awarded with $640,000.

 

This year some of the most frivolous cases included the case of a Washington lawyer who filed a lawsuit against dry cleaners who lost his trousers. He demands $65,000 compensation for "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort".

 

It was a successful year for criminals as well. Pennsylvania court ruled that the insurance company must pay Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, $500,000 because he received physical and moral damages after being trapped for 8 days in a garage of a family whose house he burgled.

 

Texas court ruled that the owners of a store must pay Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas $80,000 plus medical expenses after the woman tripped over a running kid and as a result broke her ankle. The child was her own son.

 

During the current economic recession, lawyers warn that a lot of desperate people will most likely file even more outrageous lawsuits, reports The Telegraph.

 

A family law specialist from California, Jim Fedalen, considers that there are going to be even more scams. "I have no doubt we're going to see a big increase in scams, such as people deliberately planting nasty objects in their sandwiches then trying to sue the burger joint," he said.

 

..............................

 

There is more:-

 

http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

My personal favourite Tracker is what is now written on a packet of peanuts -

 

"May contain nuts"

 

 

 

*-) (lol)

[GJH]

Well done Norman Baker. About time, hope he succeeds in having the Bill enacted.

 

Graham

[Guest Tracker]

CliveH - 2009-07-15 10:05 AM

 

My personal favourite Tracker is what is now written on a packet of peanuts -

 

"May contain nuts"

 

*-) (lol)

 

Oh - I thought that was, or should be, written on the side of the houses of parliament!

[Hopesy]

It's very dangerous,trying to define common sense. Yesterday i bought a pair of sunglasses from M & S, i checked the label attached to them to check the UV rating and one of the warnings was "Not to be used when driving at night"!!!!.

[Guest Tracker]

On the side of a microwavable ready meal -

 

'May be hot when cooked'

[Rapido-lass]

In essence a grand idea, but some people have little or no common sense, so where is the line drawn for common sense and then of course we will have the minority with no common sense claiming discrimination!

[GJH]

Rapido-lass - 2009-07-15 11:29 AM

 

In essence a grand idea, but some people have little or no common sense, so where is the line drawn for common sense and then of course we will have the minority with no common sense claiming discrimination!

I would assume that the Clapham Omnibus test would be applied.

 

Graham

[Tony Jones]

Funny that, it was the Clapham Omnibus (do they still run one?) that came to mind when I read Tracker's concern about defining common-sense.

 

While on the subject, would this bill protect househoolders from being sued by burglars when they tripped over things, hurt themselves on broken glass, etc? I'm not talking about having a right to shoot them, just preventive security!

[Guest Tracker]

A point to bear in mind is that none of these signs or warnings are put in place to actually protect anyone from harm.

 

Their sole reason for existence is to protect the land owner, manufacturer, service provider or individual from potential law suits from idiots with less common sense than Clapham Omnibus Man is deemed to have.

 

So if common sense became law would all those signs and warnings disappear from our lives - or would they need to remain for the benefit of the (very large!) proportion of the populace who currently do not have C O M's common sense because they grew up in an environment where common sense was not required?