legal Responsibilty

I agree with you Mike, a reasonable person must assume responsibility for their own actions.

Cheers

Mike and Swine Hunter,

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but see point 2 of my post below. What price principle?

Matt

Wolfie

The pendulum may be swinging the other way, but not by the scrapping of old laws, but by making more new laws. Therefore more laws = more lawyers = more costs.

R.

Hahahahah,

Just why is it do you think that there are hundreds of good Lawyer Jokes around?

A bus containing 52 lawyers goes over a cliff on the way to a legal conference. Do you call it ...

a) A tragic accident,
b) A damn shame
c) A good start!

Cheers
Muddy

But the problem is if it goes over with a spare seat,

d) Its a waste of space!!!!!!!

com'on guys..this is serious ..its fridees funnies

true, one cannot sign away their rights
but you can get insurance to indemnify the other person

A misnomer, they are regarded as an "Acknowledgment of risk" by courts.

In the very short simple version, you are signing that you acknowledge that the "Whatever" you are undertaking has an element of risk and you acknowledge that you understand that risk, If you elect to proceed then you will have been deemed to accept that risk.

It may not mitigate the "Other" person completely but it makes it harder for you to say, "I did not know or understand what I was getting myself into". Which will then apply to points 1 and 2 below.

You have three points to prove to be able to apply liability to another party.

1. That a duty of care exists.
2. That that duty of care was breached.
3. That damage or injury resulted from breach of that duty of care.

All three of these points must be met before you could consider begining action of any sort.

These three point are in most instances very difficult to prove.

Also there has been a major attitude change in courts in regards to personal responsibility, this is shown by a number of very high profile liability damages cases in recent years being overturned on appeal or in fact thrown out very early on the proceedings.

The Gold Coast Council V the young chap who dived into the surf and broke his neck, result quadriplegic and the court said in very basic terms.
You are an adult and you have a known duty and responsibility to ensure that the water was deep enough to dive into before doing so and should not rely on the fact that warning signs may or may not exist as circumstances can and do change and it is not unreasonable for you to know that.

Not withstanding that it is a sad case for the young gent involved Its a more commonsense approach that is being taken by the courts.

This is starting to sound a bit much like a MARCSTA cours. BTW nudey Usually get my beer by the block 24 hours in a day - 30 cans to a block no coincedence just better

geezus, dont tell swmbo. She'll have me working an extra 6 hrs/day!

Hi Kiwi Kia.
When I get home I will make contact with you through this forum.
rotorua club have just had a meeting with OSH and DOC to try and sort out this problem and I beieve that have come up with a draft form that each person signs each day accepting that they are in charge of their own truck and ellect or not to attempt the obstacle / hazard in front of them. i will have a copy athome by the time I get there, ( end of the week ).
The other thing is to do away with a trip leader as such. Apparently a trip leader by designation is responsible, accordinng to OSH
E mail is apollo2002@xtra.co.nz
Ray

Hi Matt (I assume?)

You're a brave man (lawyer) posting to this thread :)

>2. However, until we get there, the fact that you personally
>don't like the current legal position (eg Mike Harding's
>comments above) won't necessarily help you, so think twice
>before you bet your assets and financial future on a point of
>principle.

I understand that. I once paid an expensive barrister (is there any other kind?) quite a lot of money to tell me how incorrect I was to confuse "The Law" with a concept of justice - he was quite correct, of course, and I learned from his advice.

However...

If we all sit on our bottoms and say "Oh dear I'd better not do that just in case something happens and I end up in court" then we might as well call it a day and go and live in another country and I'm not ready to that just yet (although the Politically Correct and wimpish attitude of a large proportion of the Oz population is pushing me in that direction). What ever happened to the free thinking, authority resenting Aussie who just wants to do his own thing without government interference - I think he's been a little bit neutered by the PC brigade and if we accept that then we're stuffed.

So perhaps I will end up on the wrong side of the law but it'll be because I believed it was the "right thing to do" and I think it's much more important to be true to myself than a law, often, made for the benefit of specialised self interest groups and/or wealthy individuals and corporations - then again I'm a cynic and a bit of a anarchist :)

I do agree with your last two paragraphs though.

And finally:
A law firm receptionist answered the phone the morning after the firm's senior partner had passed away unexpectedly.

"Is Mr. Smith there?" asked the client on the phone.

"I'm very sorry, but Mr. Smith passed away last night," the receptionist
answered.

"Is Mr. Smith there?" repeated the client.

The receptionist was perplexed. "Perhaps you didn't understand me I'm
afraid Mr. Smith passed away last night."

"Is Mr. Smith there?" asked the client again.

"Madam, do you understand what I'm saying?" said the exasperated
receptionist. "Mr. Smith is dead."

"I understand you perfectly," the client sighed. "I just can't hear it often enough."

Mike Harding :)

ROTFL!! It's pretty rare to hear a new lawyer joke, and that's a good one!

One of my favourites in return: A partner in a small 2-partner firm took instructions from a little old lady on a will. It was a simple job so he charged her his standard $100 fee. She didn't want to be bothered with him posting her the bill etc, so she paid him in cash on the spot with a crisp $100 bill, and left with will in hand.

Some time later, after she was well gone from the office without leaving any forwarding details, he discovered that she had accidentally given him TWO $100 bills stuck together.

Now he faces an ethical dilemma ........

....... does he tell his partner?