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
|