Compensation culture Watch

This discussion is closed.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
Except that Shark is a deputy District Attorney, not a Personal Injury lawyer

And why should you be given compensation for losing a limb or getting shot in the armed forces anyway? You know there is a degree of risk when you sign up. Surely that's what you get paid for
Because nobody would sign up if, following a sever injury, they were simply thrown on to the ****-pile and left to rot.
0
TRB
Badges: 0
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
The compensation culture is nothing compared to the American system due to some of their retarded laws we just have some idiots over here too.




Straight in at number 1 in RollOnFriday's Courtroom Stupidty Top Ten comes the US judge who is suing his local dry-cleaner for $65million after they lost a pair of trousers.

The case began back in 2005 when Roy Pearson brought several suits to Custom Cleaners. When a pair of trousers went missing Pearson demanded $1000, the full price of the suit, to replace them. However, when the trousers were found a week later he refused to accept them and when the cleaners refused to pay up, he sued them.

Pearson is now asking for over $65million, claiming that Custom Cleaners breached consumer protection laws by hanging signs saying, "satisfaction guaranteed" and "same day service" and then failing to live up to their promises. He also wants a further $15,000 for being forced to hire a car each weekend so that he could take his dry cleaning to a different establishment. Remember, this is a judge making this claim.
Fluent in Lies
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
I love how you can sue for an accident, as if it could be forseen, when by its very definition an accident is unexpected. Those cases cited are especially ridiculous.
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
(Original post by tehjonny)
For the same reasons you get compensation if you trip up in the office place, and no, they aren't being paid to lose limbs.
But what do you get paid for? If you're carrying a gun, in an area where other people are also carrying guns and their target is you, why should you get compensation for being shot? Its got to happen to someone, sometime, or things will remain in a constant equilibrium. If you don't want to get shot, don't sign up.
0
tehjonny
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
But what do you get paid for? If you're carrying a gun, in an area where other people are also carrying guns and their target is you, why should you get compensation for being shot? Its got to happen to someone, sometime, or things will remain in a constant equilibrium. If you don't want to get shot, don't sign up.
No-one would sign up if this were true, luckily it is not, we have people at the MoD who actually understand military matters and have decided compensation is needed. If you're a typist, and your receive a typing related injury, why should you receive compensation?

Can I ask you, are you also against the NHS/welfare state?
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 11 years ago
#26
Heh heh no, I work at the CAB, mostly helping people claim benefits and so on from le big bad government And I support the NHS.

But I'm also a pacifist and feel strongly that the armed forces are entirely an 'optional' risk rather than simply a career choice, so I don't see why compensation should be paid. Yes, perhaps my logic is skewed and I can see why the typist should get nothing also.
0
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
Heh heh no, I work at the CAB, mostly helping people claim benefits and so on from le big bad government And I support the NHS.

But I'm also a pacifist and feel strongly that the armed forces are entirely an 'optional' risk rather than simply a career choice, so I don't see why compensation should be paid. Yes, perhaps my logic is skewed and I can see why the typist should get nothing also.
Don't be ridiculous.
0
Bubblebee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
Heh heh no, I work at the CAB, mostly helping people claim benefits and so on from le big bad government And I support the NHS.

But I'm also a pacifist and feel strongly that the armed forces are entirely an 'optional' risk rather than simply a career choice, so I don't see why compensation should be paid. Yes, perhaps my logic is skewed and I can see why the typist should get nothing also.
Exactly, don't sign up for war and then be all shocked when you get shot.
0
randomgirl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 11 years ago
#29
Argh I hate how society has turned into this "compensation culture".

That woman doesn't deserve any of that money, surely her thumb will get better? It isn't like it got shot off! And as a typist she should be aware of the risks of RSI!! Stupid bint.
0
Consie
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
You have a WIRELESS?! I thought they belonged to the 1950s and earlier...
Ha, I was going to say that. It was class the way my grandpa always used to refer to the radio as the wireless.

How is a solider easier to train than someone who only knows typing? Typing is essentially a semi skilled job at best. If that’s all she’s been trained at, then she can be retrained at almost anything else. How did that line of argument wash in court?

Didn’t she notice that her thumb was starting to hurt? Its not the same as walking down the street and tripping over a poorly laid flag, you cant see that coming. Surely there’s responsibility on her part to deal with the thumb as it became sore?

Got to give it to her, she had the balls to go for it and it
0
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
Compensation is a basic element of our justice system. It's not always a form of blame or even reward, but is both a way of spreading the financial risk of carelessness, and more abstractly, of providing justice where there was a duty of care. In many cases, liability doesn't mean you were "wrong" or malignant in your conduct, it's just the most efficient way of spreading financial loss and correcting a case where a legitimate interest was harmed.
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
Don't be ridiculous.
Could you elaborate on where I have been ridiculous? :confused:
0
Spiffy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
Where is Don't Sue People Panda when you need him...
0
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 11 years ago
#34
(Original post by mudblood)
It's not stupidity there - it's just plain laziness. I can't believe that people think they deserve this money.

(Original post by NJA)
If you can get it, why not ?
i see both points here. no they should not be able to get it but if they can get why shouldnt they? Most people would if they could and that is a sad thing in our world.

(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
But what do you get paid for? If you're carrying a gun, in an area where other people are also carrying guns and their target is you, why should you get compensation for being shot? Its got to happen to someone, sometime, or things will remain in a constant equilibrium. If you don't want to get shot, don't sign up.
thats my arguement as well, your a soldier part of the job is that your going to get shot at,

what do they think there getting in for a large game of paint ball?
0
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
Could you elaborate on where I have been ridiculous? :confused:
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
But I'm also a pacifist and feel strongly that the armed forces are entirely an 'optional' risk rather than simply a career choice, so I don't see why compensation should be paid. Yes, perhaps my logic is skewed and I can see why the typist should get nothing also.
The armed forces take on an "optional" risk no more than you take on an optional risk by using a busy road. It's a career choice, yes, but a career that somebody has to do, and one which includes serious risk to your person. Injuries sustained in combat, for instance, can have long term consequences for your livelihood, and so there is a need to provide compensation in such cases. Furthermore, without that guarantee of financial security in case of injury, there would be less incentive than there already is to do such dangerous work. Compensation here isn't simply a reward; it's just that - compensation for loss, and "risk money" from the employer (the government). The government is acknowledging that they've put you in harm's way.
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
You cannot deny that joining the armed forces is optional. If you do join the armed forces you do take on the risk of being injured, just as, if you run out into that busy road, you run the risk of being injured.

I'm aware compensation isn't meant as a 'reward', but it is often seen as such. People will inevitably try and milk all they can out of a situation, even if common sense dictates that if you put yourself in a position of danger, you run the risk of injury.

The government is acknowledging that they've put you in harm's way
But again, the injured party absolves themselves of any responsibility for their situation. They can't just use the excuse "The government told me to go there" in order to rid themselves of any blame.
0
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
You cannot deny that joining the armed forces is optional.
I don't think I did deny that. I pointed out that you choose the career, but the risk itself is no more optional than the risk you accept when you choose to cross a busy street. It's nto the risk you're primarily interested in, but the utility of the action. You can't therefore thrust fault ont he soldier for the risk incurred by his profession.

If you do join the armed forces you do take on the risk of being injured, just as, if you run out into that busy road, you run the risk of being injured.
Yes and this is quite different to playing on a railway line, where you are warned: you do so at your own risk - the fault for injury is shifted to you. In the armed forces, this isn't the case because the government needs people to do the job, so they accept to cover the risk. In other words, you're not doing anything you shouldn't be

I'm aware compensation isn't meant as a 'reward', but it is often seen as such.
Well, whether it's "seen as such" or not is irrelevant to the necessity of such structures in a justice system. Where there's a right, there must be a remedy. How undesired the misfortune was, and how avaricious the claimant, are irrelevant to this.

People will inevitably try and milk all they can out of a situation, even if common sense dictates that if you put yourself in a position of danger, you run the risk of injury.
But again, people have this assumption that if you get hurt you just find a random person to give you sorry money. That's not how Tort works. The way that law spreads risk depends on various factors including policy, economic considerations and the most probable way of avoiding risk. So where it's clear that you had every reason to expect to be injured, and where you're solely responsible, then it's rare that you just get paid anyway. You only have a claim where somebody who the law had accredited with a duty of care, has ignored or not done enough to insure it.

But again, the injured party absolves themselves of any responsibility for their situation.
No. It's not your job to make sure that your hamburger isn't made from rotten meat. Equally, it's not your job to provide safety equipment if you do a dangerous job. It all depends on who the law says must ensure minimal risk (note I don't say no risk, but if it can be minimised as greatly as possible). Where there's a right, there must be a remedy.

They can't just use the excuse "The government told me to go there" in order to rid themselves of any blame.
They can. The job is there only because the government provided it.
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
All I say is joining the armed forces is their choice. They were fully aware of the risk of injury when they signed up. Therefore in my opinion should they then become injured doing the career they have chosen, they have some degree of responsibility. Massive compensation payouts for this foreseeable risk I believe are unjustified.
0
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 11 years ago
#39
(Original post by pinkpinkuk)
All I say is joining the armed forces is their choice. They were fully aware of the risk of injury when they signed up. Therefore in my opinion should they then become injured doing the career they have chosen, they have some degree of responsibility. Massive compensation payouts for this foreseeable risk I believe are unjustified.
Your opinion is hard to sustain in light of of the reasonable facts we need to consider here. The job would not exist if the government didn't provide it, and we can probably all agree that, until such a time as world peace and reasonable international politics have been achieved, armed forces will be necessary. A person may have chosen the armed forces, but they didn't choose to get injured - you can't equate the levels of responsibility. Their job is to risk getting injured. I find it incredible that you don't think that the strain should be shared with the providers of this employment. The government needs people who choose to join the armed forces - unless you favour conscription.
0
Vohamanah
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
If someone is injured by a dreadful mistake by the government, or a representative of the government and thus faces a risk which was entirely unforeseeable in usual circumstances, the responsibility should of course be weighed between them. However, you seem to be suggesting that if in the course of combat a soldier gets shot, that they can expect to be sustained by the government despite the fact it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of joining the armed forces.

Obviously they are not being paid to get shot. However, it is inextricably linked with the nature of the job. The job is a dangerous one, that cannot be denied. If you have joined the armed forces you can hardly claim that you had no idea there was a chance of injury. If you just want to march, join a marching band. The danger is what makes the job what it is and can't be separated from the job.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (63)
29.44%
No - I got the required grades (122)
57.01%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (29)
13.55%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise