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

Originally Posted by ben.mid

There really should have been barriers up & maybe a fella keeping a watch, but she really should have been paying more attention.
Maybe she'll get run over while reading the cheque on the way to the bank?

I agree. Yes, there should maybe have been a barrier or someone keep a watch, but she should also have paid attention. What is she or her Mom going to do if she bumps into someone walking in the opposite direction? Sue him or her as well? Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I don't care that the law says the workers were negligent. What the facts say is that this stupid girl performed the actions that caused her accident. She is more responsible for what happened than the workmen. Again, I'm talking literal facts, not what the namby-pamby laws say.

If the law says she deserves compensation then fine. I'd award her 1 cent.

Well Ray, thanks for your editorial. I like the namecalling. It really adds weight to your argument.

Common law does not equal common sense, I think we can all agree that this is at least sometimes the case. There MIGHT aven be regulations in NYC to prevent this type of thing...in which case the workers might be statutorily negligent (called negligence per se, I believe).

Would I hold myself blamless? HELL NO! But if I were injured or otherwise damaged, and they were also negilgent, would I sue to recover? Doubtful, but it would be my right to do so.

Originally Posted by icedog

Well Ray, thanks for your editorial. I like the namecalling. It really adds weight to your argument.

What namecalling? What are you talking about?

Who did I insult?

Sheesh.

Definition of namby-pamby:

–adjective
1. without firm methods or policy; weak or indecisive: namby-pamby handling of juvenile offenders.
2. lacking in character, directness, or moral or emotional strength: namby-pamby writing.
3. weakly sentimental, pretentious, or affected; insipid.

Sounds like a perfect way to describe laws that encourage people to be irresponsible by rewarding them financially.

"What the facts say is that this stupid girl..."

Why are you Brits arguing so passionately about this? It doesn't matter to you and you don't know anything about the subject material. I am telling you how it is and you want to tell me how you think it should be. The only people at fault were the workmen. They have rules that they ignored. The girl was lucky it was a shallow hole and she only fell four feet. If it was on Manhatten Island instead of Staten Island she could have fallen forty feet. There are many manholes that open over subway tracks and she could have been killed. Your opinion in this matter is of no consequence. The fact is the workers were grossly negligent.

Brad, I think there's a major miscommunication going on here. I'm certainly not trying to tell you what your own country's laws are. Most of those criticising the girl are probably reacting to the dangers of an increasing litigious society.

The UK is moving towards such litigation slowly, but steadily, and we don't like it. I can only speak for myself, but it seems that part of the move towards such over-litigation over what was previously chalked up as bad luck or acts of god is symptomatic of a wider move to shirk personal responsibility and accountability to oneself. Why is it always someone else is to blame for one's own misfortune? That's what it seems like to me, anyway.

10 years ago, if this girls mishap had happened in the UK, nothing would have come out of it except a few people telling her it served her right for being so negligent of her own safety and that, in future, they bet she won't do THAT again in a hurry. Now there's always someone to blame or sue. And if its the council, then we as tax payers all end up footing the bill.

It's almost as if you only have to fart on a bus and someone will sue you for damages to their olfactory senses. We see this shift in the UK and we don't like it. Well, a certain generation and above don't like it.

It's like the fatties who sue McD's for their obesity, the lung cancer sufferers who sue BAT, the idiots who sue for scalding themselves on hot coffee... I read about these cases and I think what a sad place the world is becoming, where every last safety measure must be legislated for to the exclusion of common sense.

I think that's where the passion is coming from.

Lets keep this civil Gents. interesting topic it would be a shame to have to shut it down.

If you ordered a cup of coffee, and promptly spilled it on yourself, but instead of 110 degree coffee, 210 degree coffee came out all over your lap. Instead of a little scalded red burn mark, you now have terrible second degree burns caused by coffee just a few degrees away from the boiling point! Coffee far too hot to drink, and brewed that way simply so the company can squeeze a few extra cups out of a pound of beans, even though they had been warned that it was dangerously hot.

YOU spilled the coffee. But you think that you ought be powerless under the law to recover?

I am truly interested in your response.

Originally Posted by majurey

Brad, I think there's a major miscommunication going on here. I'm certainly not trying to tell you what your own country's laws are. Most of those criticising the girl are probably reacting to the dangers of an increasing litigious society.

The UK is moving towards such litigation slowly, but steadily, and we don't like it. I can only speak for myself, but it seems that part of the move towards such over-litigation over what was previously chalked up as bad luck or acts of god is symptomatic of a wider move to shirk personal responsibility and accountability to oneself. Why is it always someone else is to blame for one's own misfortune? That's what it seems like to me, anyway.

10 years ago, if this girls mishap had happened in the UK, nothing would have come out of it except a few people telling her it served her right for being so negligent of her own safety and that, in future, they bet she won't do THAT again in a hurry. Now there's always someone to blame or sue. And if its the council, then we as tax payers all end up footing the bill.

It's almost as if you only have to fart on a bus and someone will sue you for damages to their olfactory senses. We see this shift in the UK and we don't like it. Well, a certain generation and above don't like it.

It's like the fatties who sue McD's for their obesity, the lung cancer sufferers who sue BAT, the idiots who sue for scalding themselves on hot coffee... I read about these cases and I think what a sad place the world is becoming, where every last safety measure must be legislated for to the exclusion of common sense.

I think that's where the passion is coming from.

I understand all that. My issue is that this is not one of those overly litigious issues. There is a term for law suits that are clearlyinitiated to rake the defendant over the proverbial coals and (excuse the mixed metaphore)milk them for every cent they can get. That is calloed "maliscious prosecution". The mother of the boy who tried to sue the late Michael Jackson was found to have a long list of maliscious lawsuits in her past. I personally know a guy who bought himself a BMW with the money he settled for out of court when he walked into a car that was backing up in a parking lot. This manhole case is not one of those.

While it may seem funny that the girl was so involved in her text discussion that she walked into a hole. It could have been a tragedy. I will say nothing else on the matter. I am right. You all know I am right. What else is there for me to say?

Originally Posted by icedog

"What the facts say is that this stupid girl..."

Why are you Brits arguing so passionately about this? It doesn't matter to you and you don't know anything about the subject material. I am telling you how it is and you want to tell me how you think it should be. The only people at fault were the workmen. They have rules that they ignored. The girl was lucky it was a shallow hole and she only fell four feet. If it was on Manhatten Island instead of Staten Island she could have fallen forty feet. There are many manholes that open over subway tracks and she could have been killed. Your opinion in this matter is of no consequence. The fact is the workers were grossly negligent.

Exactly. Even this small manhole could have been deadly. What happens when these workers begin work on a deep manhole and neglect to put up caution barriers before beginning work? Next time it might be a small child or a blind person.