Blame Culture 47

[ScottyUK]

zdas04 rightly suggested that this belonged in a separate thread to where it was initially posted.

"I personally don't like some of the culture developing in the UK where everything is someone else's fault. No-one accepts responsibility for their own actions any more, however stupid those actions are. It is leading to increasingly restrictive legislation and in some instances corporate and state 'nannying', and an ever-growing level of paperwork designed to keep the ambulance-chaser lawyers at bay. How is it in the rest of the world?"

So - is it just the UK afflicted with this blame culture? Is it right? Or should Darwin's Theory of Evolution be allowed to take effect and reduce the number of stupid people in the world?



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[ewh]

SacreBleu,

I agree that all lawyers aren't bad, not even most lawyers. They are simply fulfilling a need. It seems that the convoluted judicial system should shoulder much of the blame. This is not to say that we don't need laws, only just laws. Why should someone be put away for life for having a lb of pot, but someone else get probation for manslaughter or only a couple of years for murder?

 

[epoisses]

Lawyers are fulfilling a need, certainly, but laws are not black and white and somtimes they're just ill-constructed. If your job is to sometimes have to prevent somebody who committed a crime (if he admitted that to his lawyer) from being punished because the applicable law is flawed, you must have a certain tasted for the ethically perverted. I couldn't do the job without running into right/wrong conflicts between myself and I.

I believe you just can't do your job as a lawyer in a manner as beautifully clean and perfect as a mathematician does his/hers. The edges are rugged, dirty and sometimes covered in blood. My pessimistic theory is that lawyers who work for murderers and robbers eventually become infected with... *evil*....

 

[SolderingGunslinger]

At one job, the owner rented the top floor to a group of lawyers. One Attorney specialized in criminal defense and seemed to take every high profile drug or capital murder case in the city. The other floors of the building housed the offices and studios of a medium sized broadcast group. From time to time we would have some of the most unsavory characters wandering through the building. While the sensitive broadcast areas were protected behind security doors, often a sales person would find one of the lawyers’ clients walking through the cubicles. Other clients would flush diapers down the toilet and plug the plumbing to the point where floor drains above the plug would spew sewage. The attorneys didn’t see that it was incumbent upon them to ask their clientele not to wander the building or flush stuff down the loo. Often, the plumber would discover something other than what one usually finds in a used diaper wrapped in the clog.

One evening after close of business, my assistant and I drew the outline of a body in chalk on the floor of the elevator used by the lawyers. It was interesting to see the reaction both from the lawyers and from the lawyers’ clientele.

I remain,
The Old Soldering Gunslinger

 

[Maui]

Vonbad, you are correct. "Loser pays" meant that the individual, not the lawyer, who lost the case is required to cover the court costs and lawyer fees of the opposing party. In some cases in the US this is in fact part of the ruling if the judge decides that it is warranted. So to a limited degree a plaintiff already has some exposure to the possibility of paying for their opponent's legal fees and court costs in the US. But this is not a law as it seems to be in the UK. If the case is shaky, as in a frivolous civil lawsuit, this type of legislation might deter the plaintiff from filing in the first place. This would be a good thing. It would not however affect the ability of an individual to bring charges against another party for commiting a criminal act.

Maui

 

[SacreBleu]

"Frivolous" lawsuits are rightfully villainized. In addition, there are plenty of "righful" class-action lawsuits, which cost millions of dollars in fees, but the victims typically receive about $20 each as their settlement. (Speaking from experience, two occurences)

 

[casseopeia]

SacreBleu

You are so right! I'm usually working as a defense expert, and I've always wanted to know if the Plaintiff's attorneys are upfront about the amount the 'injured' receives out the overall settlement. It's my guess that most homeowners in construction class action lawsuits are not told what they can expect.

I'm horrified by the amount of money spent by the attorneys and experts as it compares to the amount of most claims, eventhough it the main purpose for my current employment.

 

[SWComposites]

This article confirms the lawsuit insanity that we have here in the US: "Woman awarded $45,000 for cat killed by neighbor's dog"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/09/cat.lawsuit.ap/index.html

This case should have been thrown out and the plantiff's lawyer fined heavily. Its long past time that ALL law schools in the US be shut down for a minimum of 20 years.

 

[debodine]

I have never verified the following as a fact, although it was relayed to me years ago as a fact. I think the reason I have never researched it is because I would like to think it really was true, and I don't want my vision spoiled.

Anyway, supposedly, many years before the colonies became the United States of America, the Massechusetts Colony had a standing rule that any lawyer found within the boundaries of the colony was immediately tarred, feathered and ejected across the boundary.

Sadly, I imagine a lot of good chickens went naked to keep the colony clean!

 

[IRstuff]

SWComposites,

If it had been your two-yr old child that was attacked, you'd sing a different tune. There have been increasing numbers of attacks by dogs that were historically bred for viciousness and brutality. Owners of those animals have continued to take a very cavalier attitude towards public safety. There have been repeated discussion about licensing of engineers, but there is essentially zero requirements on animal owners where there actually is a significant impact to public safety.

One of the purposes of the law is to provide a deterence. If the penalties are insufficient, there is no deterence. While that particular award may be excessive, the deterence factor may prevent a future tragedy with your children or mine. This particular dog owner was a repeat offender and it would only be a matter of time before his animal maimed or killed a child.

TTFN

 

[SWComposites]

I have no problem with someone getting charged with criminal negligence, etc. for non-control of a problem animal. I do have a problem with a civil award of $45K for a dead cat! I also have a problem with potentially getting sued by the owner of a vicious dog if I should shoot the dog if it is my yard or attacking me - which would probably happen because some lawyer would claim I violated the rights of the vicious dog owner and caused him mental anguish, etc.

 

[SacreBleu]

IRStuff,
I generally agree with you, except this should have been a matter for Animal Control. The dog would have been "impounded", and if determined to be untrainable, it would have been put down.
I understand the grief of the cat owner, but the award was absurdly large.

 

[vonbad]

Regarding the "Woman awarded $45,000 for cat killed by neighbor's dog". I agree with both SWcomposites and IRstuff.

Since I am a "Owner of those animals", not a chow owner; I find the owner to be truly derelict in his responsibilities. It is a matter of one being responsible and having a breed like this carries a lot of responsibility. There is no governing body to determine if someone should have a breed of this nature or any other type.

Any type of dog can be made to be aggressive.

I haven't researched this in awhile, but at the time I got my dog I did do a little research. At that point (1992) poodles held the top ranking for biting people, and it was estimated that a large percentage of bites were not reported.

The issue with large breeds is that if they attack they carry a lot more power behind it.

I believe that this fits well within the "blame culture" in many ways. First, we had an irresponsible dog owner stating "I wasn't there so it's not my fault" WRONG. Next the lawyers saying $$$, out of the $45K how much are they getting.

It was very unfortunate that this happened.

 

[UcfSE]

You can't compare children to cats. No cat on the planet is worth $45k regardless of its owner's feelings. I agree with SW.

 

[SacreBleu]

UcfSE,
Even though I feel that the $45k is greedy (since the lawyer is on contingency fee basis), there are people in this world who don't have or cannot have children. A beloved cat or dog can be a child substitute. However, the $45k will not bring the pet back; the death of the cat did not require a large cost for funeral, etc. Only if the dog owner deliberately set the dog to attack the cat, would I agree with a large award, but not necessarily as much as $45k. There is a lot of much more extreme grief in this world being compensated for less than that.

 

[IRstuff]

Had the victim been a child, the award, uncollectible as it is, would have been in the millions, so $45K, actual and punitive, given that this was a repeat offender with ZERO remorse is quite reasonable.

And again, part of the decision process is DETERRENCE. The point is not that it was simply a cat, but that it could have been a child. If the guy was merely penalized for actual and reasonable replacement cost, he'll be back with the same dog in the same situation next time, only it will be a child that got maimed or killed.

This is not unlike the 3 strikes laws that are currently on the books. While it's sad that some schmuck decided to steal a loaf of bread for his 3rd strike, he made a free choice to break the law, KNOWING that it could be his 3rd strike. The intent of the law is to convince the ones that come after him to refrain from doing the crime.

Unfortunately, this idiot dog owner and criminals have same inability to accept responsibility for their actions and also seem to be unable to control their own actions. Of course, one common thread amongst people of those ilks is an innate belief that they can get away with their actions.

TTFN

 

[SacreBleu]

The only one this is going to deter is one person, the guy in question. As I opined above, this should be solely the Animal Control's decision. They could have the guy imprisoned, hence deterrence. No reason to line the pockects of an ambulance-chasing type of lawyer.

 

[IRstuff]

Animal Control's purview is extremely limited. Unless the animal actually attacked a human and/or is obviously rabid or overtly aggressive, they won't and can't do much.

TTFN

 

[UcfSE]

You punish people for what they did, not what they didn't do. You punish the guy for killing the cat, not that he could have killed a child. There are exceptions such as attempted murder or rape but by and large you don't punish someone legally for something they didn't do.

All things being equal, no matter how attached you are to your cat and regardless of your ability to have kids, a cat is NOT a human child. It is a cat, with no civil rights under any law or the Constitution. Animal cruelty laws are not the same thing as civil rights or civil liberties. You don't ruin someone's life with a $45k fine over a damn cat. You get another cat, do your time and move on with life.

 

[IRstuff]

Apparently, you've been out of the country for a while.

3 strikes is ALL about deterrence

TTFN

 

[UcfSE]

IR, my point of view has nothing to do with being out of the country. That was just ignorant. You have your opinion and I have mine. That as simple as it is. Besides, I said nothing about 3 strikes or deterrence. I said a cat is not worth $45k any day of the week. That is my OPINION.

If we executed car thiefs and shop lifters that would be a hell of a deterrent but we don't do that here. Along that same logic, I don't believe $45k for a dead cat is reasonable, but I don't make the laws. I have only an OPINION about them.