Thread: “They were just, like, ‘I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

I believe it's wrong. When crews do road work, they block off the lane(s) being worked on so injuries don't happen. I see this as being no different.

Originally Posted by gregs656

Maybe, but was it wrong? Walking into a post (that by the way, wasn't ALWAYS there like the ground was, Icedog) is equally as dangerous as stepping into a hole is it not?

Ogle, blame the fact that your eyes didn't adjust fast enough, you could have walked into pretty much anything. You were injured because you knew you couldn't see properly and you kept walking, negligence, sure - on your part, though.

You would think nature would have made tree drunks yellow and water red, so we wouldn't step into them by mistake.

Sorry, if you don't put in the effort to concentrate where the next foot is going, you deserve an accident to teach you a lesson, man made hole or otherwise.

In a place of business where your money goes to the proprietors or in an environment where upkeep is managed by workers whose salaries are paid by taxes, we have the right to assume that we can move about in a reasonably safe manner where carelessly left obstacles do not threaten injury.

I could see where I was going, but against a dark carpet, a black hand truck was not visible. But enough about that, it doesn't even matter.

Your argument is too absolute for the modern world. In an environment you describe there are no businesses or workers or "liability" of any kind. Just trees and lakes. I'm sorry but the argument doesn't hold water. To what extent of negligence would one have to go for you to shift the blame from yourself to them, short of actually accidentally lighting your house on fire?

I see two guilty parties, the ungaurded hole and the silly text while walking girl. Accident happened, no one was hurt, smile, dust yerself off, everyone make apologies to each other for their own negligence , learn the lesson, shake hands, go and sin no more.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

To what extent of negligence would one have to go for you to shift the blame from yourself to them, short of actually accidentally lighting your house on fire?

I guess you would have to be paying attention and not notice a lack of vision, or sound? Or am I expecting too much of people? You brought it up, it does matter, apparently. You could see fine, but you missed the cart, sounds like it's your fault then? Or did you sue them for picking the wrong carpet?

They block off the lanes so you don't damage their work, would you expect them to actively drive you around their work, just in case you're foolish enough not to notice?

The trouble is, people expect that where they place their feet is going to be fine, that does not mean they have any RIGHT to expect that, or they shouldn't look anyway, just in case.

Originally Posted by gregs656

They block off the lanes so you don't damage their work, would you expect them to actively drive you around their work, just in case you're foolish enough not to notice?

The trouble is, people expect that where they place their feet is going to be fine, that does not mean they have any RIGHT to expect that, or they shouldn't look anyway, just in case.

Surely you can't be serious?

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

Surely you can't be serious?

Absolutely, why not?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I see two guilty parties, the ungaurded hole and the silly text while walking girl. Accident happened, no one was hurt, smile, dust yerself off, everyone make apologies to each other for their own negligence , learn the lesson, shake hands, go and sin no more.

I agree with you here. This is EXACTLY why I didn't do anything about my case. A person's understanding/beliefs about when to let something slide and when to take action are his/her own. The manhole girl's family decided to go the other way.

The reason why I elaborated on a similar case was because (getting back to the original point) you can say the girl was chewing gum, birdwatching, counting the freckles on her arms, whatever. I saw the fact that it was texting as irrelevant, AND, to go by to the hypotheticals, something much worse could have happened.

As for gregs' points, I'm ending that argument here as it's going nowhere.

Thanks guys.

G

I've been in and around plenty of construction sites and "dangerous" areas, one of which would be an open manhole, and the safety precautions taken are mainly for the benefit of the public. In high foot traffic areas, you can't reasonably require everyone to look at the ground they're walking on. I've been to some of the biggest city centers in the world where walking is the prime mode of transportation. Every single one of them has had cones and safety precautions up around obstacles or hazards. This goes for other countries as well.

As for roads, there was once a bridge out near my house. Construction hadn't started on it yet, but they blocked the road off anyway. Are you saying to me that they should not have blocked it off, and people should have been able to see that the bridge was out?

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I've been to some of the biggest city centers in the world where walking is the prime mode of transportation. Every single one of them has had cones and safety precautions up around obstacles or hazards. This goes for other countries as well.

Yay, so have I. I don't think I ever said they don't exist, but do we have the right to expect them? I'm no so sure.

Someone should sue her for being dense.

I find the legal responsibilities of the city to be an uninteresting factor in this story. So the guys forgot to put up a cone- that's not a story. What I find interesting is that the story (at least what I know of it) is representative of a trend in which young people pay more attention to virtual reality than to reality itself. Let its rewards be its own punishments!