|
| Warning signs | | Date Created: Mar 27, 2005, 07:17 PM |
 Using "lack of adequate warning" is such a bogus and abused justification for tort liability that it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it. Actually, only plaintiff attorneys can convince themselves that it's a real reason why someone (with money) should be held accountable for their lack of warning and the client's injury. They even convince themselves and try to convince us that they're doing good for society by getting evil corporations to put out adequate warnings.
Most people think the warning signs are a joke. McDonald's, of course, has to label their hot coffee hot now. Huge, heavy soft drink machines have to have signs that injury or death can result from tipping or shaking the machine in order to get it to dispense. There are even contests for the most ridiculous warning labels.
The reasoning goes thus: a company or someone gets sued for negligence because they didn't warn the poor injuried plaintiff adequately and that resulted in the injury regardless of how obvious or common knowledge the danger was. So the company responds by putting up the warning sign the plaintiff attorney convinced the jury should have been there. No more lawsuits right? Wrong. People do stupid things and accidents happen whether there is a warning sign there or not.
So you can't sue for negligence and win because the defendant can prove there was adequate warning (based on the prior case)? Wrong. The defendant still didn't do enough because obviously there was an injury. The assumption of the tort litigation system turns out to be that it matters not what the defendant did or didn't do. If something bad is alleged (it doesn't even have to be real) to have happened to the plaintiff, someone must be negligent by definition. Well, not quite, the someone who must be negligent has to have money to go after.
It's so bad that the counterproductive aspects of this are starting to show. They're more subtle in defensive medicine but everyone knows that too many warnings (that huge book of warnings that comes with electronic or power devices) result in nothing getting across. People just ignore too much fine print or ridiculous warnings. In the case of helmets and bicycle riding, there's some suggestion that there are more injuries because people do stupid things thinking they're safe because of the helmet. Too much on a consent form in surgery and the plaintiff attorney gets to argue that the plaintiff didn't know what they were signing.
Now comes the ultimate, just as you'd expect. It didn't happen in the US though. The Aussies are learning our bad legal habits, but it probably has happened here or it certainly will. This is from Overlawyered.com
Australia: City 75% liable because "No Diving" sign wasn't explicit enough
Philip James Dederer acknowledges seeing a "No Diving" sign on the Foster/Tuncurry Bridge in New South Wales, but dove anyway, and the 14-year-old became paralyzed as a result. He sued: "[The sign] just told me I shouldn’t dive – it did not put any danger into it." The court bought the argument, and Australian taxpayers are now on the hook for A$1,050,000. (Dederer v. Roads and Traffic Authority, 2005 NSWSC 185; "Bridge diving victim awarded $1m", Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 18). An Australian blawger, David Starkoff, defends the judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
