California was booming. Millions of immigrants from the Midwest and East Coast were making Los Angeles the place to be. Businesses were flourishing and new houses, schools, hospitals, and other structures were being built at a frantic pace. But it was not all work and no play. With the arrival of the Dodgers and the Lakers our city of angels was also becoming a sports Mecca. We were blessed with Vin Scully, Chick Hearn, Mel Durslag, and Jim Murray. They were more than just sports broadcasters or sports reporters. They were artists. Their vivid word pictures put us on the scene and drew us to the action. They made us want to witness the events they so brilliantly described. The personality, style, and professional excellence of each of those gentlemen made their broadcasts and columns experiences to savor. They set the standard by which all others are measured. Although worthy successors, such as Joel Meyers of the Lakers, are making their own contributions, no one will ever replace Vin Scully, Chick Hearn, Mel Durslag, or Jim Murray.
Vin Scully is still doing the play by play from Dodger Stadium, and he is as sharp and brilliant as ever. I envy anyone who is hearing him for the first time. Enjoy him while you can. He has been working his magic for over fifty years, and he will retire someday. I am reminded of this because a new baseball season has started, and I am enjoying his descriptions and his almost boundless knowledge of the game. Bless you, Vin Scully! I think I speak for all fans when I say listening to you, particularly while watching a Dodger game, is one of life’s great pleasures.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Don't Blame The Idiots; They Are Us!
Nothing is idiot proof. It cannot be done. Idiots are far too clever. No matter how foolproof you think you have made something someone will find a way to mess it up. If you do not believe me, just look at the warning labels on many of the products you own. Almost every aerosol can displays a label warning you not to spray that product into your eyes. Most electronic products have a label warning you not to get the product wet. Ladders are notorious for warning labels. There is one warning you not to use the top of the ladder as a step. There is another warning you not to step or stand on the fold out paint can tray. Many ladders also have a label warning you to set the ladder only on flat, even surfaces, and metal ladders usually have a label stating that the ladder will conduct electricity. Many people collect such warning labels, and there are web sites and blogs displaying them. The labels often seem humorous because they state the obvious. Yet each label is the result of someone doing what the labels now warn you not to do.
So who are the people who do such foolish things? In most cases they are not certifiable idiots. They are the frustrated and the harried. They are the people who are distracted or preoccupied. They are the people who are so driven to quickly complete the task or a number of tasks that they lose sight of the details. As much as I hate to admit it, they are you and I!
Jim had painted a small cabinet he had made. He had used a paint that came in an aerosol can. He let the cabinet sit all night after painting it. When he looked at the cabinet the next morning it was obvious that it needed another coat of paint. He pointed the can at the cabinet and pressed the button. Nothing happened. He could not have run out of paint so quickly. The nozzle must be clogged. He found a sewing needle and inserted it into the nozzle. He then removed the needle, shook the can, pointed it at the cabinet and pressed the button. Nothing happened. He inserted the needle again, thinking that if he pushed the needle in a little farther and wiggled it a bit, it would unclog the nozzle. He had just removed the needle when his cell phone rang. He inspected the nozzle as he talked on the phone. At this point he must have lost his presence of mind because he pressed the button, thereby spraying the paint in his eyes.
Mary was under a lot of pressure. She was a single mother who worked long hours to provide for her children. The stress was constant and cumulative. She was running late that morning. She had to drop her children off at day care and get to work. She had already been warned that she could not be late again. She knew she should not let her hair dryer get wet. She took it into the shower thinking she could keep it away from the spray. She was dead serious about multitasking, and the result was fatal.
John knew he was more likely to fall off the ladder if he stood on the top of it, but the paint had cost him so much that he would have been hard pressed to come up with the money he needed to buy a longer ladder. Compounding his problem was the fact that his yard sloped. He was not going to grade his yard to paint his house, and he did not know how to build a scaffold, even if he had thought about building one. Needless to say, he fell.
Then there is the frequently cited case of the lady who spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap. She knew there was a chance she would spill it, but nothing in her experience told her that coffee purchased at a fast food place would be scalding hot rather than unpleasantly hot. There is risk and then there is risk!
With the exception of the McDonald’s coffee, none of the products mentioned above were inherently unsafe. To many people it must seem as though our courts have gone insane. There are even people who collect and display what they consider to be dumb lawsuits. The people who are most critical about our laws and courts, however, have not put in the time and effort to find out what is really happening. They are usually the same people who complain about all politicians but never vote. There are many instances when the courts apply the reasonable man test and recognize assumed risk.
One such case involved a barrel of solvent that had the following warning label in big bold letters: CAUTION: HIGHLY FLAMMABLE. KEEP THIS BARREL OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND DO NOT EXPOSE IT OR ITS CONTENTS TO AN OPEN FLAME! The man filing the lawsuit had tried to open the barrel with a blowtorch. This is not something a reasonable person would do, and that is what the court ruled.
Another example is a suit a cowboy filed against a rancher because the cowboy was injured while trying to rope, brand and castrate calves. In its decision, the court said in part: “It is obvious that calves do not like being tied up, branded and castrated, and they will do whatever they can to prevent that from happening.”
“All right,” I hear some you saying, “but what about the suits that prompted all those warning labels?” I attribute them to our broken medical system and to our inadequate system for providing for those who are in dire need of help. On one side the jury sees a business that is bound to have insurance. On the other side is a severely injured person who is seriously incapacitated. Most people are aware that they are just one catastrophic illness or injury away from bankruptcy. If the injured person has insurance at all, it is unlikely that the policy limits are high enough to provide for his or her needs. The business is far more likely to have a policy with limits that are high enough to provide the care that is needed. The jury probably will be sympathetic to the plaintiff even if his or her actions caused the injury. After all, jurors occasionally do stupid things too. They probably will not be sympathetic to the companies that insure the business. Let’s face it most of us think an insurance company has screwed us sometime, and it probably has.
The complaints of the insurance industry are disingenuous. The truth is that the insurance companies themselves file many of the suits they complain about. Think about it for a moment. Insurance companies are businesses, and they want to make as much money as possible. Claims cut into their profits. They will deny coverage, make low ball settlement offers, and pass the claims off to someone else whenever possible. If the injured party files a claim against his homeowner’s insurance or his medical insurance, that insurance company is very likely to file a suit against the manufacturer of any product involved in the incident.
Right or wrong, social concerns as well as legal concerns play a role in our courts. Since we do not have anything in place to adequately provide for people who are incapacitated, the courts have stepped in to fill some of the void. The law does not overtly make manufacturers the insurers of the people who purchase their products, but the result of the verdicts and awards effectively do that. I think it is unfortunate that we have to ascribe blame in order to help someone who desperately needs help. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I do not advocate a no fault system. There are too many companies who would knowingly sell defective and unsafe products, and ascribing blame is essential in those circumstances. What we need is a system that provides adequate assistance and treatment to those who suffer a catastrophic injury or illness. Hopefully someone who is a lot smarter than I am will come up with a reasonable way to do that. Juries can then concentrate more on the merits of the case and hold off on their concerns about the needs of an injured person until it is time to reach a decision about how much to award a plaintiff who has prevailed in the suit.
As it now stands, there are far too many people who are working the system. I think we can do better, but I do not believe our laws and courts will ever be foolproof. There will always be the human element, and we humans are far too fallible.
So who are the people who do such foolish things? In most cases they are not certifiable idiots. They are the frustrated and the harried. They are the people who are distracted or preoccupied. They are the people who are so driven to quickly complete the task or a number of tasks that they lose sight of the details. As much as I hate to admit it, they are you and I!
Jim had painted a small cabinet he had made. He had used a paint that came in an aerosol can. He let the cabinet sit all night after painting it. When he looked at the cabinet the next morning it was obvious that it needed another coat of paint. He pointed the can at the cabinet and pressed the button. Nothing happened. He could not have run out of paint so quickly. The nozzle must be clogged. He found a sewing needle and inserted it into the nozzle. He then removed the needle, shook the can, pointed it at the cabinet and pressed the button. Nothing happened. He inserted the needle again, thinking that if he pushed the needle in a little farther and wiggled it a bit, it would unclog the nozzle. He had just removed the needle when his cell phone rang. He inspected the nozzle as he talked on the phone. At this point he must have lost his presence of mind because he pressed the button, thereby spraying the paint in his eyes.
Mary was under a lot of pressure. She was a single mother who worked long hours to provide for her children. The stress was constant and cumulative. She was running late that morning. She had to drop her children off at day care and get to work. She had already been warned that she could not be late again. She knew she should not let her hair dryer get wet. She took it into the shower thinking she could keep it away from the spray. She was dead serious about multitasking, and the result was fatal.
John knew he was more likely to fall off the ladder if he stood on the top of it, but the paint had cost him so much that he would have been hard pressed to come up with the money he needed to buy a longer ladder. Compounding his problem was the fact that his yard sloped. He was not going to grade his yard to paint his house, and he did not know how to build a scaffold, even if he had thought about building one. Needless to say, he fell.
Then there is the frequently cited case of the lady who spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap. She knew there was a chance she would spill it, but nothing in her experience told her that coffee purchased at a fast food place would be scalding hot rather than unpleasantly hot. There is risk and then there is risk!
With the exception of the McDonald’s coffee, none of the products mentioned above were inherently unsafe. To many people it must seem as though our courts have gone insane. There are even people who collect and display what they consider to be dumb lawsuits. The people who are most critical about our laws and courts, however, have not put in the time and effort to find out what is really happening. They are usually the same people who complain about all politicians but never vote. There are many instances when the courts apply the reasonable man test and recognize assumed risk.
One such case involved a barrel of solvent that had the following warning label in big bold letters: CAUTION: HIGHLY FLAMMABLE. KEEP THIS BARREL OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHT AND DO NOT EXPOSE IT OR ITS CONTENTS TO AN OPEN FLAME! The man filing the lawsuit had tried to open the barrel with a blowtorch. This is not something a reasonable person would do, and that is what the court ruled.
Another example is a suit a cowboy filed against a rancher because the cowboy was injured while trying to rope, brand and castrate calves. In its decision, the court said in part: “It is obvious that calves do not like being tied up, branded and castrated, and they will do whatever they can to prevent that from happening.”
“All right,” I hear some you saying, “but what about the suits that prompted all those warning labels?” I attribute them to our broken medical system and to our inadequate system for providing for those who are in dire need of help. On one side the jury sees a business that is bound to have insurance. On the other side is a severely injured person who is seriously incapacitated. Most people are aware that they are just one catastrophic illness or injury away from bankruptcy. If the injured person has insurance at all, it is unlikely that the policy limits are high enough to provide for his or her needs. The business is far more likely to have a policy with limits that are high enough to provide the care that is needed. The jury probably will be sympathetic to the plaintiff even if his or her actions caused the injury. After all, jurors occasionally do stupid things too. They probably will not be sympathetic to the companies that insure the business. Let’s face it most of us think an insurance company has screwed us sometime, and it probably has.
The complaints of the insurance industry are disingenuous. The truth is that the insurance companies themselves file many of the suits they complain about. Think about it for a moment. Insurance companies are businesses, and they want to make as much money as possible. Claims cut into their profits. They will deny coverage, make low ball settlement offers, and pass the claims off to someone else whenever possible. If the injured party files a claim against his homeowner’s insurance or his medical insurance, that insurance company is very likely to file a suit against the manufacturer of any product involved in the incident.
Right or wrong, social concerns as well as legal concerns play a role in our courts. Since we do not have anything in place to adequately provide for people who are incapacitated, the courts have stepped in to fill some of the void. The law does not overtly make manufacturers the insurers of the people who purchase their products, but the result of the verdicts and awards effectively do that. I think it is unfortunate that we have to ascribe blame in order to help someone who desperately needs help. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I do not advocate a no fault system. There are too many companies who would knowingly sell defective and unsafe products, and ascribing blame is essential in those circumstances. What we need is a system that provides adequate assistance and treatment to those who suffer a catastrophic injury or illness. Hopefully someone who is a lot smarter than I am will come up with a reasonable way to do that. Juries can then concentrate more on the merits of the case and hold off on their concerns about the needs of an injured person until it is time to reach a decision about how much to award a plaintiff who has prevailed in the suit.
As it now stands, there are far too many people who are working the system. I think we can do better, but I do not believe our laws and courts will ever be foolproof. There will always be the human element, and we humans are far too fallible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)