View previous topic | View next topic

A step too far?

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Arcane
903991.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:02 am Reply with quote

Strawberry wrote:
Harry Gem and Augurio Perera invented tennis. Gem died in 1881 and it isn't know what happened to Perera after 1881, so it might be a bit difficult to sue them.


Sigh. I was joking, making an ironic post.

 
Strawberry
903994.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:13 am Reply with quote

(i wasn't being completely serious either. But i do have Asperger's so i can't always tell when people are joking.)


Last edited by Strawberry on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Jenny
904002.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:15 am Reply with quote

There's a simple explanation for this case - the insurance company has deep pockets.

 
'yorz
904007.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:47 am Reply with quote

I understand that, but it would set a precedent, wouldn't it? And that could hit the smaller companies as well.

 
swot
904015.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:19 pm Reply with quote

Strawberry wrote:
(i wasn't being completly serious either. But i do have Asperger's so i can't always tell when people are joking.)


If it helps, I figured you were just joking back, albeit in a factually accurate manner.

 
Strawberry
904018.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:30 pm Reply with quote

:) Thanks, Swot.

 
Sadurian Mike
904038.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:03 pm Reply with quote

Arcane wrote:
Who invented tennis? SUE THEM TOO!

That should net some cash.

 
djgordy
904042.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:24 pm Reply with quote

One might imagine that the insurance policy details which uses the driver can have of his vehicle in order to be covered. If people use their cars for something other than is specified in their policies then their insurance is invalid. Using the vehicle to entrap and assault women might not come under the prescibed uses.

Jenny wrote:
There's a simple explanation for this case - the insurance company has deep pockets.


The insurance companies only ever get their money from people who pay premiums so it will, ultimately, be the rest of us that stump up.

 
Arcane
904076.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:44 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Arcane wrote:
Who invented tennis? SUE THEM TOO!

That should net some cash.


It's just a racquet.

 
bobwilson
904086.  Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:29 pm Reply with quote

I’d agree with Neo that this claim will fail (not probably) – not only that but the courts know it will fail, as does the solicitor bringing the case (which, theoretically, could lay him open to a formal complaint to the Law Society about his conduct).

Legally, the proximate cause of the injury has nothing to do with the taxi – it stems from the use of doctored drinks which Worboys gave to, and which were accepted by, his victims.

As Richard Scorer (the solictor who’s bringing the case) says (my bold)

Quote:
The crux of the case is that, as a matter of law, a motor insurer has to cover injuries caused by or arising out of the use of a vehicle — that can include criminal acts and deliberate injury


He then rather spoils it by

Quote:
We say that these women have been injured due to circumstances caused by or arising from the use of Worboys's vehicle. He used his taxi to entice them, entrap them, imprison and rape them.


Worboys could be said to have used his taxi to entice his victims – but the entrapment, imprisonment and rapes were the product of a glib tongue and doctored drinks.

It’s worth noting that a much better case could have been made had the situation been one in which no drugs were administered – eg if Worboys had simply remotely locked the doors, driven his victims to some quiet spot, and then assaulted them. Or alternatively, if the drug had been insensibly introduced via the air-conditioning unit. And certainly it would have been a much better case where the vehicle used was not a taxi, and particularly where the victim had been an involuntary passenger.

This smacks of an opportunity for the professional lawyers to have a bit of a dig at the amateurs who’ve opted to become parliamentarians. It’s basically the courts saying:

“look, you’ve spent all this time carefully wording the law so that we mere peasants (in your eyes) just have to tick the relevant boxes – and you’ve made a bit of a hash of it. Don’t worry though, we’ll dig you out of the hole you’ve created and ‘clarify’ the matter on your behalf”.

It’s significant that this is being pursued in a situation where it is most likely to fail given the numerous better opportunities to have chosen instead. But then, had Mr Scorer chosen one of those cases the unnamed insurance company would have fought a bit harder to have the case struck out on the grounds that it’s a waste of court time and an abuse of process.

 
Starfish13
904123.  Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:11 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Arcane wrote:
Who invented tennis? SUE THEM TOO!

That should net some cash.


Pat Cash?

'yorz wrote:
Here's a claim waiting to happen too, then...


In that case, I'm so owed something from my high school for being hit in the face with a hockey ball and breaking my nose, for being sticked across the hand and breaking my first and second metacarpals, from my primary school for being knocked down in a netball match and fallen on by another girl and breaking my tibia and talus, and from my university for wiping out in a ski-cross race, dislocating my thumb and fracturing my elbow (and having the biggest friction burn from sliding along the mat in bare skin).

And others for other things, being quite active and outdoorsy. Children get injuries, have accidents. It's part of growing up, developing your motor skills, testing your limits and experiencing risk in a controlled environment, which is what organised sport is. This litigious attitude really annoys me. Outdoor play and physical activity is important for development and growth, and just general health and well-being.

 
Arcane
904145.  Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:58 am Reply with quote

Then there's the issue of deliberate assault, but given that there are many people on this forum, which I daresay reflects the rest of the world who have been bullied... that's another slippery slope.

 
Starfish13
904163.  Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:31 am Reply with quote

Arcane wrote:
Then there's the issue of deliberate assault, ...


There is a growing move away from classifying childhood injuries as accidental/non-accidental toward the phrases unintentional/intentional. The thought behind this being that an accident implies randomness and that it was unable to be prevented, where as an unintentional injury occured as a result of the correct safety measures not being in place or not being observed.

 
Arcane
904179.  Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:50 am Reply with quote

Can you imagine if every parent tried to sue for bullying?? Just... mind boggling.

 
Spud McLaren
904332.  Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:41 pm Reply with quote

Not just parents, though. There's bullying in the workplace. It happened to me once, and I'll tell you it is NOT going to happen again.

However, I doffcock, I'm sure.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group