spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Public drafting, was Re: a Very Sad thing

To: Lancer7676@aol.com
Subject: Re: Public drafting, was Re: a Very Sad thing
From: MIKE MACLEAN <macleans@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:47:29 -0800
Cc: davemiles2son@worldnet.att.net, jboatri@emory.edu, spridgets@Autox.Team.Net
References: <db7114d3.36392cda@aol.com>
Reply-to: MIKE MACLEAN <macleans@earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-spridgets@Autox.Team.Net
David,
It will never work until we do what Shakespeare said" First we kill all the
lawyers!"
                                  Mike MacLean-60 Sprite

Lancer7676@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/29/98 9:24:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> davemiles2son@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << Helmet laws, smoking laws, seatbelt laws,
>  carseat laws, speed limits.  Enough is enough.  Life is not intended to
>  be lived risk free.  One should endanger others as little as possible >>
>
> I hate laws too.  Laws, regulations, signs.  I also hate to be taken advantage
> of by unthinking souls who want their "freedom"--so, I have a solution.  I
> call it simply a "Liability Limitation law".  It would replace all the others.
> If I am involved in a wreck with a biker who is dumb enough to not be wearing
> a helmet, or a driver who is stupid enough to not have seat belts buckled, or
> a parent negligent enough to not have their child in a carseat, they are
> putting ME and my livlihood in jeopardy.  They are increasing, unthinkingly,
> the risk that More serious injury will occur to them should they be injured in
> a mishap with me, thus placing me under greater liability, no matter who is at
> fault.  Fault is not an issue here--only the negligent decision to ignore
> common sense in safety.
>
> The common sense law would only limit MY liability in such a circumstance.  If
> HE decides to not wear his helmet on his motercycle ride today and is involved
> in a mishap with me, no matter who is at fault, MY liability is erased or
> radically reduced.  It becomes a matter of freedom of choice--and I am not
> injured by HIS negligent choice.  But he is free to make it.
>
> It needs a little work, I know, but I really like the essence of it.  I do
> like you endangerment of others comment.  Good reason for regulating
> overbearing smokers who feel they have a "right" to damage other people as
> much or more than they are doing to themselves (I am one of those dangerous
> ex-smokers--lol).
>
> --David




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>