Always wear your seatbelt, kids. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Silence

2009-02-05, 08:08 PM

Ok, so here's the setup: I was in the car, an old sedan with Sarah in the front seat and Wesly driving. I was in the back seat.

Suddenly, we totally T-boned a car at about 20 MPH. Nobody was hurt, but I got some cuts on my face, and a bloody nose.

Thank goodness for seatbelts, and the intelligence to wear one.

The moral: Always wear your seatbelt. Please. Seriously.

Also, I lost my iPod. There's an excuse for my parents to buy me a iPod touch, though.

Canadian

2009-02-05, 08:13 PM

You should sue the guy. You'll get way more than an ipod.

Silence

2009-02-05, 08:16 PM

You should sue the guy. You'll get way more than an ipod.

Think in real life terms. This guy is my friend. I wouldn't sue him over a $100 iPod. It wasn't his fault.

Canadian

2009-02-05, 08:25 PM

If it wasn't your friends fault you should sue the other driver. It was their fault.

RS14

2009-02-05, 08:33 PM

You should sue the guy. You'll get way more than an ipod.

I always thought it was Yankees who were notoriously lawsuit happy. :smallwink:

Besides, if he T-boned another driver, you'll likely have a hard time demonstrating that it was that other driver's fault, unless they were doing something really egregious.

Neither my sister nor my dad wears a seatbelt consistently. I've pestered them, but they don't seem to learn. My sister has at least stopped putting her feet on the dash, ever since I showed her this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roentgenator/1384930412/).

Dave Rapp

2009-02-05, 08:43 PM

I actually don't even feel right being in a movie car without a seatbelt on. It's not even a logical safety thing. Putting it on is a reflex now.

Deathslayer7

2009-02-05, 10:23 PM

*points to sig* :smallcool:

The Neoclassic

2009-02-05, 10:37 PM

I don't see any compelling reason not to wear one. I mean, it isn't "cool" but not wearing one isn't "cool" either (just stupid). Seatbelts should be used, as there are countless incidents where they have saved lives.

Serpentine

2009-02-05, 10:42 PM

If it wasn't your friends fault you should sue the other driver. It was their fault.First of all, there is nothing in the story to indicate that it wasn't Silence's friend's fault. Shall you be encouraging the other person to sue them, now?
Second of all, never mind the fact that the other person is a living, breathing, feeling person who may have obtained their own injuries and who, if it is their fault, may be feeling absolutely terrible for what they did, which may have been nothing but a simple momentary lapse of concentration - or maybe a sneeze, in which case, I'm told, they'd get off scott-free anyway.
Finally, it's this sort of rampant sue-mongering which, aside from being extraordinarily antisocial, is driving up insurance premiums and means that Jackie Chan can't do nearly as many, or as awesome, stunts himself :smallmad:

That your very first response was "SUE THE BASTARD!" says much about you.

If Australia's done anything right, it's making not wearing a seatbelt illegal...

The Neoclassic

2009-02-05, 10:47 PM

Also... I thought suing was mostly to recoup damages (in theory)? If you don't have huge medical bills, then there's not really any reason you should or that you'd get anything. You can't just be like "This guy broke my iPod because he made a driving error. Can I have several thousand dollars?"

At least, this is based on my rudimentary understanding of the legal system...

Deathslayer7

2009-02-05, 11:50 PM

SilverSheriff

2009-02-06, 12:03 AM

Is there anywhere in the united states where I can sue people for being dumb as a post and not having a warning sign clearly labeling them as such?:smallcool:

One of my friends cousins who live in America was actually saved by not wearing a seatbelt, his car was T-Boned and he(the passenger) and his girlfriend(Driver) were thrown out of the car into the street, he landed on the road and was knocked unconscious, and his girlfriend followed him landing head first colliding with the blokes head, she died instantly and he miraculously survived.

If he were to wear a seatbelt his girlfriend would have collided with him and they both would have died in the car as it was crushed by the Truck (as in an actual truck, none of this 'Truck means Ute' business).

RS14

2009-02-06, 12:13 AM

One of my friends cousins who live in America was actually saved by not wearing a seatbelt, his car was T-Boned and he(the passenger) and his girlfriend(Driver) were thrown out of the car into the street, he landed on the road and was knocked unconscious, and his girlfriend followed him landing head first colliding with the blokes head, she died instantly and he miraculously survived.

If he were to wear a seatbelt his girlfriend would have collided with him and they both would have died in the car as it was crushed by the Truck (as in an actual truck, none of this 'Truck means Ute' business).

Yeah, it happens occasionally. Statistically, though, you're much safer with a seatbelt on.

I wonder how much it is for a six-point harness? Really, why don't cars have them?

Kjata

2009-02-06, 02:49 AM

This reminds me of a silly old time i had once with a couple of friends. The local h-fiend and a redneck who go to my school ask me and a couple of good friends if we want to go drift a van with them. Now i dont mean like a mini van, i mean like a Volkswagen bus style van. A bigass van, if you will. Now, there were only 4 seats, and there were 7 people total, so 3 people had to ride in a car that would be watching. I almost rode on the floor of the van, because I wanted to drift but all the seats were gone. Anyway, the tires lock up mid drift and they go into a ditch and hit a pair of trees going like 30mph. The knocked down 2 fairly big trees, and smashed the hell out of the van. Nobody was hurt, except for a couple of bruises and one guy hit his head on the windshield, and was kinda spaced out for a day or so. But if I had ridden on the floor without a seatbelt, I'd probably not be posting now.

Serpentine

2009-02-06, 03:09 AM

a lady bought a cup of hot coffee from the drive thru. She suddenly braked and the coffee spilled on them, burning her. She then sued McDonald's for not putting a label on the coffee that said : "Warning. Hot!"

That is our legal system. :smallamused: Where common sense does not exist. :smallamused:

I should add in for millions of dollars if i remember correctly.I've been told (by a forumite - Zeb or Midnight Son, I believe) that in fact McDonalds was at least partly to blame - something to do with the coffee being over the legal temperature or somesuch - and her burns really were quite terrible. Think the money involved was still a bit ridiculous, though.

WrathOfLife

2009-02-06, 03:44 AM

I happen to be a volunteer rescuer. (Same level of training as firefighters just don't get payed)

I've attended two crashes where seat belts play a role.
(Note, no one died in these stories)
The first one was a multi-car crash, the middle car/van, flipped then caught on fire for a bit, and the driver jumped out. I made my way over to find the driver's daughter hanging from her seat belt (passenger side up), with her foot straight through the bottom of the car floor. Without that seatbelt... well, we all know rag doll physic's don't we.

The second was came to us as a building impact. Car verse house. Now the story was, this little old grandmother was moving her son's V8 car. She put her 4 year old granddaughter in the front seat, without a seatbelt. She confused the brake and accelerator, and slammed through the garage and into the neighbors wall. The grandmother had a cut to the head. The granddaughter was flung full body onto the glove box. The grand daughters saving factor was the fast response of ambulance crews.

Seatbelt's are there for a reason. You'd be silly not to wear them.

thubby

2009-02-06, 03:56 AM

I've been told (by a forumite - Zeb or Midnight Son, I believe) that in fact McDonalds was at least partly to blame - something to do with the coffee being over the legal temperature or somesuch - and her burns really were quite terrible. Think the money involved was still a bit ridiculous, though.

quite the opposite, and the woman removed the safety measures (see:lid) of her own accord, with the cup in her lap, which is what makes it all so ridiculous.
_______________
suing people was traditionally used to get reparations for damages. since "damages" was not nailed to things of monetary value, "emotional damages" has become the playground of every crackpot lawyer in the country.

while i certainly agree the "sue them all" attitude today is idiotic to say the least, the reality is that things not covered by your health and/or car insurance are likely to be destroyed, and it seems fair to me that those responsible pay for them.

Felixaar

2009-02-06, 05:20 AM

First thought: Oh ****, Silence's lost an arm! (how I'm not sure)

Second though: Oh thank God.

I agree. Wear seatbelts.

Serpentine

2009-02-06, 05:45 AM

Oh, another thing to add to my list before: "To squeeze a bunch of money out of another person" is most definitely not a good reason to sue anyone. It should be used to seek justice for serious negligence, to prevent such a failure from happening again. The system is not made just so whiny little prats can get rich quick. If you think you've genuinely been wronged, go ahead. If not, grow a spine.

Felixaar

2009-02-06, 05:49 AM

grow a spine.

I tried, but it came out crooked :smallconfused:

You're right though.

Serpentine

2009-02-06, 05:59 AM

A good kick up the rear'll set you straight :smallwink:

unstattedCommoner

2009-02-06, 07:02 AM

@Canadian: He will get at most an iPod, because he has not (apparently) suffered any personal injury, and general damages for distress are therefore not available. That's assuming he can prove someone was negligent.

a lady bought a cup of hot coffee from the drive thru. She suddenly braked and the coffee spilled on them, burning her. She then sued McDonald's for not putting a label on the coffee that said : "Warning. Hot!"

That is our legal system. :smallamused: Where common sense does not exist. :smallamused:

I should add in for millions of dollars if i remember correctly.

Two points:

First, what on Earth gave Starbucks the impression that a drive-thru (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2008/may/02/drivethrustarbucks) was a good idea?

Second:

Persons generally expect tea or coffee purchased to be consumed on the premises to be hot. Many prefer to consume a hot drink from an unlidded cup rather than through a spout in the lid. Persons generally know that if a hot drink is spilled onto someone, a serious scalding injury can result. They accordingly know that care must be taken to avoid such spills ... They expect precautions to be taken to guard against this risk but not to the point that they are denied the basic utility of being able to buy hot drinks to be consumed on the premises from a cup with the lid off. - Bogle v McDonald's [2002] EWHC 490 (QB), Field J.

Jack Squat

2009-02-06, 08:35 AM

quite the opposite, and the woman removed the safety measures (see:lid) of her own accord, with the cup in her lap, which is what makes it all so ridiculous.

1. The coffee was in fact too hot. There were over 700 previous settlements on this fact. It gave her third degree burns. Normally, spilling coffee on yourself doesn't result in needing skin grafts.

2. She was trying to get McDonald's to settle just to cover her medical bills, they offered $800. The jury is the one that came up with the multi-million dollar figure, and a judge lowered it down to $640,000.

I don't think she should have sued, but she shouldn't have had to. McDonald's really should have covered her medical bills - if for no other reason than it happened on their property.

The Neoclassic

2009-02-06, 01:13 PM

if for no other reason than it happened on their property.

Though I mostly agree with what you said, this really bothers me. I understand that legally, that's the case, but it's always struck me as an amazingly dangerous legal set-up. If it can be shown that it is your property that caused it, then by all means, you should have to pay. But what if I take a bunch of fireworks into McDonald's parking lot and then explode them? It happened on their property, though anyone in their right mind would understand that it was entirely my fault if I end up injured from that. Just saying, who owns the land something happens on should not automatically be at fault unless their land actually seriously contributed to the accident (like their driveway was covered in black ice, for example.)

BugFix

2009-02-06, 02:20 PM

a lady bought a cup of hot coffee from the drive thru. She suddenly braked and the coffee spilled on them, burning her. She then sued McDonald's [...] I should add in for millions of dollars if i remember correctly.

Arrgh. This is the ridiculous internet meme that Will. Not. Die. Seriously kids, wikipedia is your friend. This is the first link on a google search for "mcdonalds coffee lawsuit":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

To wit: the coffee wasn't "hot", it was boiling (and boiling intentionally, per corporate policy). She wasn't "burned" in the sense of "ouch", but suffered third degree burns over 6% of her body and was hospitalized for a week. She didn't win millions of dollars, she won $640,000 (and had even offered to settle for $300k -- McDonalds refused).

Deathslayer7

2009-02-06, 02:32 PM

:smallbiggrin: your welcome. :smalltongue:

Silence

2009-02-06, 05:26 PM

Just to clarify, it's the other guys fault. And I totally agree with everything Serpentine said. No lawsuits will be thrown.

FdL

2009-02-06, 05:28 PM

Neither my sister nor my dad wears a seatbelt consistently. I've pestered them, but they don't seem to learn. My sister has at least stopped putting her feet on the dash, ever since I showed her this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roentgenator/1384930412/).

Further proof that people tend to be stupid v.v I can't even begin to understand why someone would choose to drive without using a seatbelt...Well, if they don't value their safety and make such a big fuss about wearing one, it's their life what they're gambling with *shrugs*

Some people give the dumbest excuses for it, like "it makes them uncomfortable" and "it wrinkles their clothes. Seriously, wear it and shut up.

I don't see any compelling reason not to wear one. I mean, it isn't "cool" but not wearing one isn't "cool" either (just stupid). Seatbelts should be used, as there are countless incidents where they have saved lives.

Yeah...If you drive wearing a seatbelt, there's some people who look at you as if you were crazy. I think I've been actually laughed at for wearing mine *shrugs*

This reminds me of a silly old time i had once with a couple of friends. The local h-fiend and a redneck who go to my school ask me and a couple of good friends if we want to go drift a van with them.
*snip*

See, that's where I'd say that it's a dumb way to go have fun. But well, that's just "boring" old me 9.9 The fact that there was an accident there makes the point by itself.

@Canadian: He will get at most an iPod, because he has not (apparently) suffered any personal injury, and general damages for distress are therefore not available. That's assuming he can prove someone was negligent.

Okay, besides sue-mania, I really don't know how the iPod must have broke down, but it's recommended that you don't have loose objects around in your car.

What annoys me in cases of accidents is that often people dismiss their own responsability for what happens. For example, if a man crosses the road running across, literally out of nowhere, with no possible way for you to see him or avoid him, whose fault is it if you run him over? Bleh, they'd probably blame the driver. But who put himself in front of the car?

Canadian

2009-02-08, 08:11 PM

RS14

2009-02-08, 08:42 PM

I'd say a car accident where there is personal injury or loss of property is the perfect time for a lawsuit. All parties who suffered losses should be compensated. A car accident is a very serious thing and should not be taken lightly.

A day in court could turn up previous convictions on the other driver or conditions that indicate they should not be behind the wheel of a car. If you don't take them to court they could very easily injure or kill another person.

Also injuries in slow speed collisions can turn up years after the fact. If you let everything go there is no court record for an insurance settlement if anyone in the car has fractures in their spine that don't turn up for a little while.

The safe and responsible thing to do is to go to court to settle the incident. If anyone is injured and you just "let it slide" the injured party will be out of luck. I've seen it happen before. Be wise and take them to court and have something on record.

The purpose of the lawsuit is not to be mean to anyone. It is to expose who is at fault in a court of law so future issues regarding personal injury and health insurance can be taken care of.

Well, there is a difference between filing a lawsuit and reporting an accident. Yes, by all means report it to the police at the time of the accident. However, if you've not done so, it's probably too late.

If you think you may have been injured, go and consult a physician. I dislike the notion of automatically attributing a injury you discover to a previous crash. It's possible, certainly, but it doesn't seem possible to link them unless you discover it immediately. I've seen something like this in estimating casualties from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: at what point do you stop counting cancer deaths as bomb-related? (And the statistical solution doesn't work for individuals, so is useless here).

There is certainly no need to receive anything greater than the losses sustained.

Canadian

2009-02-08, 08:46 PM

A police report is just that. A simple report. A day in court requires evidence and investigation to determine facts and your physical condition. Considering you've got the rest of your life to live it makes sense to take the time to ensure that your insurance needs are taken care of - especially if the other person is at fault.

Serpentine

2009-02-08, 10:36 PM

I've seen something like this in estimating casualties from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings: at what point do you stop counting cancer deaths as bomb-related? (And the statistical solution doesn't work for individuals, so is useless here).When the frequency of radiation-attributable diseases returns to the levels found in non-affected areas.

I'm pretty sure it's the job of the police to take reports and witness accounts and determine whether someone was legally liable and, if so, to place charges against them. If they really did something wrong, they'll go to court and be punished appropriately. They'll go to court regardless of a lawsuit. If it was just a case of "wait, was that a stop sign?", I think ramming into another car is a pretty good wake-up call. In any case, there was nothing in your original call for suing to indicate that you had anything more in mind than greed.

>hugs Ink<

Kjata

2009-02-09, 03:28 AM

See, that's where I'd say that it's a dumb way to go have fun. But well, that's just "boring" old me 9.9 The fact that there was an accident there makes the point by itself.

Oh ya, I know it was stupid, but I had just turned 16 at the time, and it was just one bad choice of many I'm making as a teenager.:smallwink: Although to date, that was definitely the stupidest thing I've done when alcohol wasn't involved.

unstattedCommoner

2009-02-09, 07:13 AM

I'd say a car accident where there is personal injury or loss of property is the perfect time for a lawsuit. All parties who suffered losses should be compensated. A car accident is a very serious thing and should not be taken lightly.

True.

A day in court could turn up previous convictions on the other driver or conditions that indicate they should not be behind the wheel of a car. If you don't take them to court they could very easily injure or kill another person.

Taking incompetent drivers off the roads is a matter for the criminal courts. Report the accident and let the police and prosecutors do their jobs.

Also injuries in slow speed collisions can turn up years after the fact. If you let everything go there is no court record for an insurance settlement if anyone in the car has fractures in their spine that don't turn up for a little while.

The safe and responsible thing to do is to go to court to settle the incident. If anyone is injured and you just "let it slide" the injured party will be out of luck. I've seen it happen before. Be wise and take them to court and have something on record.

The purpose of the lawsuit is not to be mean to anyone. It is to expose who is at fault in a court of law so future issues regarding personal injury and health insurance can be taken care of.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the purpose of civil litigation.

The starting point is that the parties should have exchanged names and addresses (or these will have been obtained by the police) and insurance details. The parties should then inform their respective insurers of the circumstances of the accident. The insurers will then take steps to obtain police reports, medical reports, witness statements, etc. with a view to reaching an informed agreement as to whose insured is responsible, and how much they should have to pay. Only if this agreement proves impossible, or if a limitation period is about to expire, should formal proceedings be commenced (and then stayed while the parties attempt to reach agreement).

Litigation is the final resort; it should not be invoked unless a good faith attempt has been made to settle. Sanctions may be imposed on winning plaintiffs who do not make such an attempt (for example, sections 258.3(1), (10) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (Ontario)).

DigoDragon

2009-02-09, 11:48 AM

If you've suffered property damages or loss (i.e. iPod), shouldn't you first make a claim with the auto insurance company of the person at fault?
(Assuming the person has insurance)

Canadian

2009-02-09, 03:44 PM

You should attempt to do something. Letting the whole thing go is the worst idea. Also a conviction from one court can be used as evidence in another court or case. If he's guilty of destroying your ipod in an accident it'll be pretty much impossible for him to prove he's not guilty of injuring you - if injuries from the accident come up later.

Winning the small case gets the ipod back and makes a future settlement easier.

If you're willing to wear a seatbelt "in case" you get in an accident - it makes sense to take the at fault party to court to settle the matter "in case" medical problems come up later.