Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you are raising is as much a philosophical question as a legal question.
Accidents are not metaphysical events. There is cause and effect in this world and the laws of physics explain accidents, injuries, and fatalities. I actually appealed and obtained reversal of a jury verdict from my state's court of appeals on the basis that the trial court had given the jury an instruction in a routine car accident car case that there is something known as the "unavoidable accident". In essence, the court held that such accidents may exist, but they are extremely rare and it was unwilling to permit trial court judges in motor vehicle cases to give such an instruction.
There are cases where accidents happen and it is impossible to prove carelessness or negligence on the part of someone. There are also cases where the claimant is the one responsible for his own injuries and suffering.
However, I think we need to stop thinking about accidents as something that sometimes "just happens". The better approach is to analyze and ask why they occurred. Engineers have a process they follow in such situations called 'failure analysis".
The airline industry has reached a point where it is essentially "accident-free". When I grew up, airliners crashed and often everyone on board the plane would die. The USA has not had an airline disaster now in over ten years. Its the result of a helluva lot of attention being given to safety considerations. I also dare say that the liability system we have in America played a key role in making this industry a no-fatality, no accident industry.
Accidents don't just happen. They are caused.
In 10 years? So if a plane crashes next year then...
I agree.
I hate the term 'car accident.'
An accident, by definition involves an unforeseeable event.
Driving like an ahole, speeding, tailgating, weaving, texting, drinking, etc, while driving does not an unforeseeable event make.
Our trauma charting calls it MVC instead of MVA. Collision. Not accident.
If we stretch the definition of foreseeable to include the slightest possibility then there is no such thing as an accident. Of course, every time I drive I know someone could veer into my lane or blast through a sign/signal in a way that I cannot avoid.
Or there could be a little oil, or water on the road. Or the car in front of you could have something fall off, or a cars brakes could fail. Not believing some people don't "believe" in accidents, that's why they're called an accident.
Or there could be a little oil, or water on the road. Or the car in front of you could have something fall off, or a cars brakes could fail. Not believing some people don't "believe" in accidents, that's why they're called an accident.
Interesting.
A few years ago, in their drive to curb teen texting and driving, National PTA began calling wrecks "crashes" instead of "accidents". Believing that most car wrecks are preventable.
I'm also hearing that term used by car insurance companies.
Or there could be a little oil, or water on the road. Or the car in front of you could have something fall off, or a cars brakes could fail. Not believing some people don't "believe" in accidents, that's why they're called an accident.
No, no, no.
A motorist is supposed to watch for things like oil and water on the road and adjust speed accordingly. You are supposed to be following other cars at a distance far enough away to stop or avoid an accident if something "falls off" the car in front of you. You are supposed to keep your brakes tuned properly so they don't fail. My brakes always give me plenty of warning when they are wearing down or when there is a problem.
I'm not going to get into a debate over the term "accident". I accept the notion that 99% of motor vehicle collisions are not intended. That doesn't mean someone is not responsible for them. I may not intend to run a stop sign. I may simply not see it. That doesn't make me not responsible for a collision that I cause when I go through the sign without stopping.
I repeat accidents don't just happen. They are caused.
You mean like when there's a 3 inch rise in a sidewalk? I agree. What human could survive such conditions? We were not made to live in times like this.
It's not a 3 inch "rise", which a pedestrian should be able to handle safely.
It's a 3 inch "step up" which is very easy to overlook and not predictable on a sidewalk.
If that hazard happened due to cracking earth/whatever within the last month or so and the city hasn't had a chance to deal with it, that's one thing. But if there were numerous reports to the city that this is a hazard and a citizen has witnessed and reported many people tripping on it, that's another.
Remember that scene in Jaws, after the Kitner boy was eaten by a shark on July 4? He and his mom were at the beach, where there are known risks. Sunburn, drowning, sharks or stingrays, etc. After he is killed, the mother approaches Chief Brody and slaps him across the face. She said I just found out you knew, you knew that shark was out there and yet my boy is dead. You knew. Chief Brody had kept the beaches open even though he knew a huge man eating shark was in the waters, because the business owners in the town didn't want to forego their July 4th weekend profits. The president of the Chamber of Commerce said, don't worry, Brody, she's wrong. And then Chief Brody says no she isn't.
So that's it. When you know there is a risk of serious injury or death but continue to operate because you don't want to lose profits.
No. I'm a huge fan of active kids, and was ok with the firepole as it was. I think I would have configured the bottom of the pole to make it where kids couldn't climb up easily - maybe make the pole end about a foot off the ground so kids weren't tempted to climb up. But yeah, we were sad when the fire pole was taken out.
And astonished that the manager of that restaurant thought removing the pole but leaving the hole was a good idea.
So, instead, some kid crawls under the pole and gets pushed into the ground (and maybe suffocates) when some heavier kid comes down the pole with speed. Yeah, that's a solution.
For those who see in every accident a need for a fix, the only solution is all children--3 feet apart from each other--strapped into soft padded chairs wearing straitjackets. And they toy with applying that to adults as well.
A motorist is supposed to watch for things like oil and water on the road and adjust speed accordingly. You are supposed to be following other cars at a distance far enough away to stop or avoid an accident if something "falls off" the car in front of you. You are supposed to keep your brakes tuned properly so they don't fail. My brakes always give me plenty of warning when they are wearing down or when there is a problem.
I'm not going to get into a debate over the term "accident". I accept the notion that 99% of motor vehicle collisions are not intended. That doesn't mean someone is not responsible for them. I may not intend to run a stop sign. I may simply not see it. That doesn't make me not responsible for a collision that I cause when I go through the sign without stopping.
I repeat accidents don't just happen. They are caused.
Watch for some water or oil, be able to always see some water in black asphalt when your driving 45 mph and hopefully keeping your eyes on cars around you, that's ridiculous-- a driver can't keep his eyes pealed on the asphalt the entire drive or he would not see the car next to him swerve. Almost makes me wonder if your pullin our leg.... Its something though that I'm very familiar with though because my brother has been an attorney for almost 20 years- not an accident lawyer but criminal defense... and it's futile trying to discuss differing points of view w him, because he has the ability to convince you the sky isn't blue, because ..no matter how valid a point another person has he has honed skills for 20 yrs because it's what he does day in day out, he managed to convince a judge he wasn't guilty of a traffic ticket which he pursued, although the officer was there to give his account-- usually judges side with the officer who cited the driver. That would be interesting to see you and him debate the fact he believed he wasn't guilty of the traffic infraction because under your way of thinking you would not believe he could not have been responsible in some way for the officer citing him.
I see a similarity in the behavior of people who sue for everything claiming everything is to be blamed on someone else who you promptly sue, which even though they often win w an accident attorney, many of these are not legit. But there's so much money in it you ca find an attorney to sue if you drink hot coffee and burn your tongue.
Last edited by mondayafternoons; 11-22-2017 at 11:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
