Sue who..... (and beware of oncoming Winnebagos!)

Angie, How about one of your famous thwacks for Jay? But seriously Jay how do we get our legal system adjusted. I don't know how the politicians do it but somehow they influence the judges decisions. The last man hanged in Australia was Ronald Ryan and he has been proved to be innocent! And the Victorian Premier of the time was shown to have influenced the court unduly (Sir Henry Bolte) If thats not corruption I don't know what is. And how do we get a Bill of Rights have a revolution peacefull I hope. Kindest Macka/peter

Correct, I did buy a BT but not from BTI.<o:p></o:p>

INSURANCE COMPANIES, LAWYERS (even Tort), LEGISLATORS and all those who want to sue at the drop af a hat:- Litigation is one reason we chose the name Tellem Bugrem for our BOG name. We are going to Copeton at our own risk and we accept full reponsibility for our own actions! If we slip and fall we get up and get on with life! If we prang, we get it fixed and back on the road. Get out and enjoy your boggering !! Forget the Winnebargo crap - we can get along without that in Australia!! Cheers, ................Rob

GOOD ON YA MATE!!! Ross

http://www.stellaawards.com/ this is the site for stella awards - it gives details of the McDonalds case & explains that the winnebago case is an urban legend - its pure fiction JR

Tell me something Rob, and you too Ross, when you are driving across a bridge to Copeton and the bridge collapses because it was negligently engineered and although the sign said it would support your total GVM, in fact, it couldn't and didn't, and you and your loved ones are now paralyzed and in the hospital, and your going to say to the engineers the most famous of all Aussie sayings "No worries, mate!"? I think not!! tgintl/jay

Hi Jay, Ross is away at present and I cannot answer for him. As a great deal of his years in the Civil Engineering field was believe it or not in bridges, I hope you will not be crossing one of his and falling in or watch out Ross. But, I note that this issue is about "who will I sue if I have a mishap after I walk out the door" Copeton is, as we live, in the north of NSW as you know. What you obviously do not know is that there are hundreds and hundreds of ancient wooden bridges in this part of Oz and roads in very poor repair you name anything bad about roads, bridges etc. we have them. I am sorry but there are no signs that say "We guarantee if you drive along this road or cross this bridge you will not come to grief!" Sure there are a number of bridges with load and speed limits to stop trucks and it is up to you if you cross them with your BT, try driving 10 and proving that. We have more that our share of accidents up here but I can't think of one involving a bridge falling down with a BT on it so you might be safe. I can see you are very serious about this issue, but I do not want to spend the rest of my life worrying about who I might sue if I take a chance and go out and that is about all you have to do. Incidently, I have in the past worked for an insurance company in claims for over 9years, so I do have some knowledge of the antics of insurance companies, lawyers, and the general public when it comes to this. Kind regards Elaine

I think Helen started this topic for a bit of a laugh about an article she had read regarding someone being stupid enough to leave the drivers seat of a vehicle and then sue the builder for not telling them to do so when it crashed. If it was true, it would have been rediculous, if it is a story, it has sucked a lot of people in over the years. I for one couldn't care less if it or the Big M coffee was true or not. Before anyone gets too hot under the collar about the rights and wrongs of lawyers, and people sueing, could we please leave this subject to die a natural death and move on to more pleasent topics such as enjoying our Bushtrackers, or nice places to go and see. Brian.

I'm just trying to work out how I can sue the lawyers for inventing sueing.

Turist

I think there is a clear distinction here Jay. The bridge said it would take the load and didnt luring people into the belief that it was safe. That deserves a trial and outcome for other bridges and other people. The litigation that most Aussies are against is the self-inflicted pain and suffering that after a trial gets money, money and more money. Things like, a guy at a party on the Gold Coast in a canal estate ..gets drunk and jumps back fence ...falls into canal injuring himself. He then takes court action for damages, the owner doesnt have public liability so potentially loses his house. How does he stop him with a sign if he is that drunk ... Another sad case is the idiot who got dumped in a wave at Bondi Beach and sued the Bondi council because it didnt have a warning sign that the waves might dump you. What if he cant read .... This has lead to the public liability debacle currently in this country with councils, clubs, charities etc running scared. They are even removing playground equipment in case a kid gets injured and sues. I've even seen an Anzac Day March cancelled because of the cost of liability insurance. In the end it is still planned because the local gov. stepped in and payed it. Unfortunately lawyers are seen to get an easy cut of this "lets litigate cash cow". Where will it all end ..... already you only get justice in the courts now if you can afford it ...unless you are so poor you qualify for legal aid. Hopefully some commonsense seems to be prevailing and greater men that I will sort it out .... Politicians, Judges and Lawyers. Anthony Explore this Great Land ...Do it Easy ...Tow a Bushtracker

I too have a civil engineering background and these days I specialize in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction. The bridge in the attached photo looked a bit dickie. The pre crossing inspection revealed two red gum girders beneath the deck (800mm dia. and no sign of rot) + tracks of a large dual wheeled vehicle in the dirt on each side of the bridge. There were no weight limit signs so I elected to take the risk. Had the bridge collapsed then I would accept full responsibility. It would have been an interesting recovery exercise. Had I been injured, then that's sheer bad luck. Life is a risk and it could happen to anyone anytime! I am also the owner of a "Fun Park", where, for fourteen years we averaged 25 to 30 incident reports (anything from a cut finger to a broken ankle.). During the 14 years we had 10 claims (less than 1 per year) and only one of these got to court. Our insurance premium rocketed from $5000 per year to $60,000 and then in year 2000 we were advised the premium would be $120,000 ! Our cash flow couldn't handle this and it was either close business or operate without insurance. We devised a disclaimer system where all visitors must sign and carry the disclaimer with them for any activity in the park . Sought of similar to temporary club membership chits but instead of being a membership card, it is a full disclaimer, asking people to go out and have fun, and, accept responsibility for their own actions. Well, in the last three years, the number of incident reports has dropped to 4 per year and there has been no claims lodged. True story,...............Cheers........ Rob

The idea started with Hammerabi around 1750BC in (where else?) Babylon (how topical). He had this cute notion of accountability and invented his much-quoted Code (The Strong Shall Not Oppress the Weak; An Eye for an Eye, and all that), based on, but expanding previous Sumerian and Akkadian laws. It promised in the prologue to treat conquered peoples fairly and in detail covered everything fom military service to witchcraft. The Torah and the Koran are also full of rules. The whole point is a social contract whereby people agree to be bound by common rules to oil the social interactions between them. Anarchy never lasts - it's too uncomfortable. So, the whole complaint is the pendulum swings too far between my "right" to be totally cocooned from anything you may do or fail to do that, in my opinion, negatively affects my or mine vs my "right" to do anything I damned well please, and its up to you to look after yourself. Finding the balance is the trick. When the whole society loses amenity and enjoyment through fear of the possibility that litigation will ensue as a result of an accident that results in someone hunting for a scalp, things have swung too far. On the other hand, a situation where the 'rugged individualists' rule is not acceptable. To say, in effect, that we all do our own thing, take our own responsibility & if we make a misjudgement & trust what someone else has done and wind up dead, then that's just tough is equally non-sane for a community. That was called Dickensian England. (Would it also mean that I should apply the Code and go and kill the perp?) To bring it all back to the Mid East where it started, consider the bridge collapse at the Macabea games. Lots of wonderful, young, happy athletes dumped in the water to drown, be horribly injured and poisoned by the toxic sludge in the river. Still suffering. Their look out? Should have known better? Not bloody likely. Try breach of community standards. Someone has to be held accountable. Ultimately, it's all a question of a community deciding what the standard should be and how to enforce it. Too high and things become unworkable. Too low and you have six year-olds dying in coal mines (or in sex slavery or chained to a carpet loom as we have now in many parts of the world) - you have to decide if that is a bad thing. If so, you make laws. The curious thing for me in all the anti-lawyer stuff is that they can only present their case (with whatever truth or smoke and mirrors they can devise). Its the judiciary that adjudicates and sets the standard of what the lawyers can get away with. If they accept total bull bleep , its the Judge whose guts we should have for garters, not the lawyer who tried it on. I have spoken. Griff PS Brian, Bogger is spelt with an 'o', not a 'u'.

PS the style of litigation is very interesting to contemplate. I read a curious story once ('The Whipping Star' by Frank Herbert, I think it was). It described an alien judicial system where the lawyer suffered the same fate as their client. Riches if they won, but if they lost, punishment, up to and including the death penalty. Needless to say, they would do almost anything to avoid litigation. So would their clients - finding a good lawyer was next to impossible - they were all court appointed - who would volunteer? A thought
Griff

It seems that most computer systems now incorporate SPAM filters that work reasonably well.

A Nobel prize (or a bottle of red) to a Bogger that comes up with a lawyer filter.

Or maybe I should open a new forum section for Lawyer Jokes.
Trouble is we would probably use all our storage space.
:-)

Turist

Griff, I kinda like Frank's theorem !!! No need to be uncivilised and administer corporal punishment to them though ... Much easier to achieve the same thing ....suspend their registration for 90 days if they lose a case !! [smile] Kinda hard to keep up the Porsche lease if ya lose 3 a year ! [WhaleTailGrin] Anthony Explore this Great Land ...Do it Easy ...Tow a Bushtracker