The administration has gone TOO far

A friend had season tickets, couldn't go to one of the games, and sold his ticket. Apparently the kid he sold it to got kicked out, and my friend received an e-mail saying that his set of season tickets has been revoked. He's trying to fight it, but we'll see.

Moral of the story seems to be that if you're selling any of your tickets... be careful.

How exactly do they revoke them? Do they check each person's ticket as they come in? Do they look for the same person? It seems they don't pay enough attention to do the former and it's a different person so the latter wouldn't work either.

las224
Moral of the story seems to be that if you're selling any of your tickets... be careful.

I fail to see how they would know. Do they make the ushers memorize all the seat numbers that have been revoked? Just get there early (always a good idea anyway) and either borrow someone else's stub to get into the section or find an inattentive usher on the townie side and walk around the bowl.

Some people () used to sneak in others who didn't even have tickets back when tickets were more scarce than they are now and when there was no central ticket exchange, so it certainly can't be harder than that.

Tell him to look at this as an opportunity to practice being clever. Besides, he can always claim he didn't get the email, and it's almost always better to apologize than to ask permission and be denied.

Kyle

To explain a little (unfortunately):

1. AD demands that the tickets be returned by a certain date, otherwise the JA gets a referral for failure to comply. This does result in a refund of the remaining unused tickets, however.
2. As you've mentioned, the individual can acquire tickets through some other means and still attend games, because it would be extremely rare for an usher to remember the person they threw out (Considering the ticket holder in this case was not even thrown out, recognition would be impossible).

To sum up, I highly doubt any excuses would work (ie. not receiving the email). The JA referral will occur if the tickets are not returned. Of course, one might argue their case there, but I would assume it could still only pertain to the "failure to comply" issue, not the AD policy regarding revocation. Also, is it worth the risk of going to the JA when one can receive a refund and use that money to buy single tickets to each game? That choice would depend on the individual, though.

canuck89
To sum up, I highly doubt any excuses would work (ie. not receiving the email). The JA referral will occur if the tickets are not returned. Of course, one might argue their case there, but I would assume it could still only pertain to the "failure to comply" issue, not the AD policy regarding revocation. Also, is it worth the risk of going to the JA when one can receive a refund and use that money to buy single tickets to each game? That choice would depend on the individual, though.

Well, given what it sounds like this season, buying the individual tickets for each game (now that Harvard has passed) shouldn't be too hard.

French Rage

canuck89
To sum up, I highly doubt any excuses would work (ie. not receiving the email). The JA referral will occur if the tickets are not returned. Of course, one might argue their case there, but I would assume it could still only pertain to the "failure to comply" issue, not the AD policy regarding revocation. Also, is it worth the risk of going to the JA when one can receive a refund and use that money to buy single tickets to each game? That choice would depend on the individual, though.

Well, given what it sounds like this season, buying the individual tickets for each game (now that Harvard has passed) shouldn't be too hard.

"I'd like seat D9, please. I've heard that it is available. Can I also get it for the rest of the games?"

The person might have trouble getting postseason tickets, though *knock on wood*

French Rage

canuck89
To sum up, I highly doubt any excuses would work (ie. not receiving the email). The JA referral will occur if the tickets are not returned. Of course, one might argue their case there, but I would assume it could still only pertain to the "failure to comply" issue, not the AD policy regarding revocation. Also, is it worth the risk of going to the JA when one can receive a refund and use that money to buy single tickets to each game? That choice would depend on the individual, though.

Well, given what it sounds like this season, buying the individual tickets for each game (now that Harvard has passed) shouldn't be too hard.

How about returning the tickets and then heading straight to the ticket office and requesting those same seats for every remaining game of the season?

KeithK

French Rage

canuck89
To sum up, I highly doubt any excuses would work (ie. not receiving the email). The JA referral will occur if the tickets are not returned. Of course, one might argue their case there, but I would assume it could still only pertain to the "failure to comply" issue, not the AD policy regarding revocation. Also, is it worth the risk of going to the JA when one can receive a refund and use that money to buy single tickets to each game? That choice would depend on the individual, though.

Well, given what it sounds like this season, buying the individual tickets for each game (now that Harvard has passed) shouldn't be too hard.

How about returning the tickets and then heading straight to the ticket office and requesting those same seats for every remaining game of the season?

About time we agreed on something, RedState.

There's plenty of time before the next home game; it seems like your friend has a good case for an appeal, and if all else fails, we still have an ombudsman, right?

jtwcornell91
There's plenty of time before the next home game; it seems like your friend has a good case for an appeal, and if all else fails, we still have an ombudsman, right?

Can someone scan the back of the ticket? My guess is that the ticket (or earlier correspondence with season ticket holders) says that it is a "revokable license" and that the purchaser is responsible for the acts of the holder. That appeal is likely to lose.


Lesson: If you are being tossed, tell them that you tossed your stub. And use a different entrance at the next game.

just for the record, this has very little to do with the ushers and everything to do with the ticket office and the AD. The usher is just doing his/her job. The usher didn't set the policy in regards to what gets you tossed, nor did they decide that your friend should be punished for the actions of someone else.

the ushers seem to take alot of heat from disgruntled fans for a policy that they really have little to do with. Now thats not to say that some of them havn't become a little overbearing in light of that policy, but I've met many that are meerly trying to keep there jobs and arn't looking to toss anyone.

Am I the only one who thinks this person might have a case on the basis of simply not being the person who was kicked out?

But, like others have said, losing season tickets does not at all mean that he wouldn't be able to see the rest of the home games.

ebilmes
Am I the only one who thinks this person might have a case on the basis of simply not being the person who was kicked out?

No, you're not the only one. I lend you my car. You drive drunk. I don't lose my license.

however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

a while back I crashed my car but my dad was still named on the title for it. when I got sued for the damages to the other car he was named as a co-defendant and we were told that the owner is always liable, regardless of who was driving....


i agree with you that the kid shouldn't have his tickets pulled because of the actions of the kid he sold it to, but just saying the car analogy might not be the best defense.

ugarte
My guess is that the ticket (or earlier correspondence with season ticket holders) says that it is a "revokable license" and that the purchaser is responsible for the acts of the holder. That appeal is likely to lose.

Unfortunately this is probably true, most season tickets are like this. So there really isn't much of a case. Isn't that where this whole getting tossed for profanity thing comes from anyway, because it is spelled out on the back of the ticket?

It's a bum deal for your friend, but I don't think Cornell will have that much sympathy.

taken verbatim from the back of the ticket:

TO THE HOLDER OF THIS TICKET
This ticket is a revokable liscense which may be withdrawn at anytime for any reason. no alcoholic beverages, containers, coolers, controlled substances, weapons, etc. will be allowed on the premises. Any person who engages in disorderly or disruptive behavior such as profanity and abusive or threatening language, or the throwing of objects, shall be subject to removal without refund. The holder assumes all risk and danger incidental to the attratcion, whether occurring prior to, durring, or subsequent to the actual atraction and agrees that the managment and it's agents and players are liable for injuries resulting from attendance at the attraction.
THIS TICKET WILL NOT BE REPLACED, REFUNDED OR EXCHANGED FOR ANY REASON, EVENT TIME, AND/OR DATE, SUBJECT TO CHANGE. TICKETS ARE NOT REDEEMABLE FOR CASH.
*NOTE: Those leaving the event must have ticket to re-enter

doesn't say anything about being responcible for someone else using your ticket.

I know for professional sporting events, if your season tickets are found in the hands of a scalper, you could lose your season tickets.

Implicit in that is you sold your tickets to the scalper, but I'd guess there's no appeal process there either.

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

a while back I crashed my car but my dad was still named on the title for it. when I got sued for the damages to the other car he was named as a co-defendant and we were told that the owner is always liable, regardless of who was driving....


i agree with you that the kid shouldn't have his tickets pulled because of the actions of the kid he sold it to, but just saying the car analogy might not be the best defense.

the thing is that no one is trying to recoup damages here. no one was harmed by the actions of the guy who bought his ticket. The only punishment is that the 'liscense' to attend hockey games is being revoked, so I think the drivers liscece analogy might work.

But it is a revokable license, which can be withdrawn for any reason.

So I guess technically they really can throw you out for being loud.

how was the ticket sold? did you do it through the elynah ticket exchange? was it done over email? if you can point to a record of this transaction that proves that you did sell the ticket (and didn't do so for more than 20% above face value) then that would help your case.

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.


As to revokability, oceanst41 is right "for any reason" is broad enough that they don't have to explain. I'd still look at any literature that came with the season tickets regarding the responsibilities of season ticket holders.

Just because they *can* revoke it for any reason, doesn't mean they wouldn't listen to a reasonable appeal. He should definitely discuss this with those in charge, and if he has to, fight it at the JA, ombudsman, whatever.

If all else fails, buy single game tickets. But its worth a polite, reasoned, strong argument.


And it has nothing to do with the ushers.

Yeah it's not that nobody's pursuing damages, it's the point that he is responsible for the person in possession of his ticket. It's definitely worth trying to speak honestly with the (fire) AD and/or JA, especially if he has some sort of paper trail clearly showing his sale to this other kid.

Without the paper trail, it might be hard to convince anyone that it wasn't him that got kicked out. I can see the authorities viewing his "I sold it!" claim as him just trying to act like he wasn't there.

In my experience, the JA people are actually pretty reasonable, but I worry that by the time it gets there the issue would be less the getting tossed from the hockey game and more the failing to comply with an order to return the tickets. I'm not exactly sure of the Ombudsman's role in the University, but maybe getting him/her involved could help your argument.... my gut feeling is that he's screwed.

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

I hate to weigh in without specific information - but I do remember talking about this issue with someone at the athletics office when I bought my season tickets (grad) this fall. This policy is spelled out on the peice of paper that has one's line number - the peice of paper that you have to sign to get your tickets. The number, the name of the person and the ticket are linked together in their system. Most people sign the line number form and hand it back to the AO in exchange for the tickets without reading it carefully, but as the guy said to me - it's a signed contract they have on file for the rest of the season. And (I believe) it says that you aren't allowed to sell or exchange your tickets, and if you do, you will be held responsible for the behavior of the ticket holder at game time. And if you violate this policy, then the season tickets are revoked.... (what seems odd to me is that you don't get a copy of the agreement to review and remind yourself of later - possibly an arguing point with the JA/Ombudsman)

Yes, the lesson is - toss the stub if you get nabbed by the ushers!

I still have my line number form (I got my tickets off the wait list and didn't have to turn mine in). Word for word:



Cornell University and the NCAA promote good sportsmanship and prohibit intimidation of athletes, coaches, officials, and spectators. Cornell requests your cooperation by supporting the participants and officials in a positive manner. Profanity, racial or sexist comments, written statements, or other intimidating actions directed at officials, student-athletes, coaches, team representatives or spectators are not tolerated. Violations will result in expulsion from the event and revocation of season tickets.
This statement is official notification of the sportsmanship policy and no second chances for inappropriate behavior will be given. Cornell reserves the right to determine what actions, statements and words constitute unsportsmanlike/intimidating behavior.

By signing this document I acknowledge that I have read the above sportsmanship statement and understand this Cornell Athletic Department policy and agree to abide by the terms herein. Furthermore, if my tickets are revoked then any tickets that are given or sold to other persons are also invalid, and if someone using one of my game tickets is expelled for violating the above policy I understand that my season tickets may be revoked as a result of their actions.

By signing this document I also give the Cornell Athletic Department permission to charge my bursar account the amount indicated as payment for my hockey tickets.

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

mttgrmm
I still have my line number form (I got my tickets off the wait list and didn't have to turn mine in). Word for word:



Cornell University and the NCAA promote good sportsmanship and prohibit intimidation of athletes, coaches, officials, and spectators. Cornell requests your cooperation by supporting the participants and officials in a positive manner. Profanity, racial or sexist comments, written statements, or other intimidating actions directed at officials, student-athletes, coaches, team representatives or spectators are not tolerated. Violations will result in expulsion from the event and revocation of season tickets.
This statement is official notification of the sportsmanship policy and no second chances for inappropriate behavior will be given. Cornell reserves the right to determine what actions, statements and words constitute unsportsmanlike/intimidating behavior.

By signing this document I acknowledge that I have read the above sportsmanship statement and understand this Cornell Athletic Department policy and agree to abide by the terms herein. Furthermore, if my tickets are revoked then any tickets that are given or sold to other persons are also invalid, and if someone using one of my game tickets is expelled for violating the above policy I understand that my season tickets may be revoked as a result of their actions.

By signing this document I also give the Cornell Athletic Department permission to charge my bursar account the amount indicated as payment for my hockey tickets.

Your friend has to throw his/herself on the mercy of the court, las224. But I wouldn't expect much in the current climate.

mttgrmm
I still have my line number form (I got my tickets off the wait list and didn't have to turn mine in). Word for word:



Cornell University and the NCAA promote good sportsmanship and prohibit intimidation of athletes, coaches, officials, and spectators. Cornell requests your cooperation by supporting the participants and officials in a positive manner. Profanity, racial or sexist comments, written statements, or other intimidating actions directed at officials, student-athletes, coaches, team representatives or spectators are not tolerated. Violations will result in expulsion from the event and revocation of season tickets.
This statement is official notification of the sportsmanship policy and no second chances for inappropriate behavior will be given. Cornell reserves the right to determine what actions, statements and words constitute unsportsmanlike/intimidating behavior.

By signing this document I acknowledge that I have read the above sportsmanship statement and understand this Cornell Athletic Department policy and agree to abide by the terms herein. Furthermore, if my tickets are revoked then any tickets that are given or sold to other persons are also invalid, and if someone using one of my game tickets is expelled for violating the above policy I understand that my season tickets may be revoked as a result of their actions.

By signing this document I also give the Cornell Athletic Department permission to charge my bursar account the amount indicated as payment for my hockey tickets.

Well the case really doesn't look good now.

Matt, stop getting in trouble with the JA. You're a grad student now for crying out loud! I miss our Freshman year...kinda.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

The fact that I agree with this, and I work for an insurance defense firm, should tell you something. The largest medical malpractice insurers lost a bundle when the stock market "corrected" itself in 2000, and they need to make up the money somehow - and the only ways they can do it are 1) nickel and dime the law firms defending cases for them, and 2) jack up their premiums. Doctors and legislators are fed the standard "out of control, litigious society" party line, and enough of them believe it.

Texas passed some much-lauded, ground-breaking "tort reform" in 2003, limiting awards for non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000. That makes sense, right? Nobody should get a windfall for suffering, as long as their economic damages (e.g., medical bills, future medical bills, lost wages) are covered? Of course it makes sense, until you remember that plaintiff's attorneys work on contingency, and pay the costs of the lawsuit out of their own pockets, hopefully to be reimbursed by part of the award.

So now they know that at most, they'll get $83,333 from non-economic damages, which means they have to have the highest possible economic damages to make it worthwhile to take a case and spend money fighting it. What has ended up happening is that the medical malpractice plaintiff's bar in Texas is only taking cases from plaintiffs who had high salaries prior to their injuries. So one of the main net effects of tort reform in Texas: Poor and lower middle-class victims of medical malpractice can't find lawyers to take their cases.

One of the biggest med mal insurers in Texas filed for a 19% rate increase in 2004 - the year after this "tort reform" was passed.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

Just a thought...how did the ushers go too "far"? It seems as if most of your complaints lie in the realm of (fire) Andy and the Athletics office. You didn't mention if you knew exactly why the person your friend sold his/her tickets to got kicked out, but maybe the ushers had a perfectly valid reason? Perhaps (fire) Andy went too far, or the Athletics office...but why the ushers?

Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

[www.lectlaw.com]

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain and "better taste". Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change the temperature. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.

Tub(a)

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

[www.lectlaw.com]

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain). Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change because it would result in less money. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.

The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

yeah.... kinda....

KeithK
The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

KeithK

Tub(a)

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

For example, the famous McDonald's case.

[www.lectlaw.com]

Quick summary:

McD's kept their coffee at a temperature several degrees higher than other restaurants so they could make less and serve it longer (more financial gain). Coffee burns dramatically faster at higher temperatures than lower. McDonald's knew this and despite hundreds of complaints did nothing to change because it would result in less money. While the original jury did award a huge punitive amount, it was reduced on appeal and eventually the two parties entered into a settlement.

McDonald's rejected a settlement offer of 20,000 dollars before the trial, that was all the plaintiff wanted to cover her medical charges.

The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

As Tub(a) points out, "The" responsibility is spread out among a number of actors.

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

Black and white sure makes things a lot easier. Good thing we don't let the crazies have guns!

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

"Flat out wrong." Okay, then suggest a different system. Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

Tub(a)

KeithK
The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

What percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?

Beeeej

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

"Flat out wrong." Okay, then suggest a different system. Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

And if "tough shit on that guy" is your answer, you have to explain why he gets the short end of the stick and the car owner doesn't.

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

Black and white sure makes things a lot easier. Good thing we don't let the crazies have guns!

*sigh* It's going to be a loooong break, isn't it?

sah67
Just a thought...how did the ushers go too "far"? It seems as if most of your complaints lie in the realm of (fire) Andy and the Athletics office. You didn't mention if you knew exactly why the person your friend sold his/her tickets to got kicked out, but maybe the ushers had a perfectly valid reason? Perhaps (fire) Andy went too far, or the Athletics office...but why the ushers?

Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.

Sorry, I did mean the administration. Wrote this quickly and with the ushers in the public eye, writing that came to mind faster than Andy/athletics/etc.

nyc94

Tub(a)

KeithK
The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

oWhat percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?

What percentage of corporations would serve coffee they knew would burn their customers in a matter of seconds? All of these play into who gets what share of the responsibility.

sah67
Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.

Sections A and B haven't been as lucky.

Tub(a)

nyc94

Tub(a)

KeithK
The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

oWhat percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?

What percentage of corporations would serve coffee they knew would burn their customers in a matter of seconds? All of these play into who gets what share of the responsibility.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

canuck89

sah67
Still a little irked by some of the complaints/generalizations about usher behavior this year...I have not had one issue or problem with them this year, and personally have not seen any behavior by any ushers in the C/D/F areas that struck me as anything but kind, courteous, or helpful.

Sections A and B haven't been as lucky.

the usher along teh a/b aisle was great last weekend: actually asked me to warn the guys cursing in the middle of the section because he didn't want to toss anyone.

Agreed, no usher problems this weekend. They didn't even do the "staredown" when I screamed something loud.

Tub(a)

nyc94

Tub(a)

KeithK
The responsibility is still Ms. Liebeck's. She was the one who spilled the coffee. But then I am a firm believer in personal responsibility for one's actions, which probably rules out a large fraction of liability suits (IMO).

That's why contributory and/or comparative negligence exists, unless you are suggesting the corporation bears zero responsibility for the accident. Had they kept coffee at the normal temperature she would not have been injured at all.

[q]Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[/q]

oWhat percentage of people would put a foam cup between their knees, even if it was "normal" hot coffee temperature?

What percentage of corporations would serve coffee they knew would burn their customers in a matter of seconds? All of these play into who gets what share of the responsibility.

If coffee tasted best at a boiling temperature then i would hope all companies that serve coffee would serve it at boiling. As it is by keeping it on a burner it turns to shit fairly quickly. However tea should be served as close boiling as possible, and yes i would put it between my legs if i had no better place to put it. However when i then did something to cause the close to boiling tea to spill on myself I would curse myself for burning myself. It just seems logical to me that if you are person who has taken something that was known to have been a boiling liquid recently and then burns yourself with it that you probably have about 99% of the blame. The other 1% is probably your parents.

ugarte

Beeeej

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

"Flat out wrong." Okay, then suggest a different system. Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

And if "tough shit on that guy" is your answer, you have to explain why he gets the short end of the stick and the car owner doesn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless. That's my general starting point. So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible. Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic. Non-power windows, non-power locks. I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry. locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever. I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home; but at work, for instance, I lock it). So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages? (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up; sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100) Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent? I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this. Was I insured? Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)? Other factors? Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc. These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.

ftyuv

ugarte

Beeeej

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

"Flat out wrong." Okay, then suggest a different system. Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

And if "tough shit on that guy" is your answer, you have to explain why he gets the short end of the stick and the car owner doesn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless. That's my general starting point. So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible. Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic. Non-power windows, non-power locks. I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry. locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever. I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home; but at work, for instance, I lock it). So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages? (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up; sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100) Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent? I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this. Was I insured? Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)? Other factors? Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc. These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.

That's an interesting set of theories, with some holes I might come back and poke at later, but I'll start with the two biggest:

(1) The victim who got hit wasn't driving a car, he was a pedestrian. His automobile insurance company is absolutely not going to pay for half of his damages (i.e., medical expenses). His health insurer might pay for them up-front, but will want to subrogate that expense by finding someone else to reimburse them, since it certainly wasn't their fault or the fault of their policy holder. Without that reimbursement, you still have someone who shouldn't have to pay for what happened paying for what happened.

(2) Our hypothetical car thief probably has about five bucks, and no insurance of any kind. Just like with any lawsuit, you can have a verdict and a judgment, but if the defendant has no assets, a judgment doesn't mean much.

So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again. Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

Beeeej

ftyuv

ugarte

Beeeej

KeithK

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Whether or not this seems workable in practice, it is flat out wrong on principle. If someone steals my car and crashes it, it's his fault for crashing it, not mine. Case closed. Blaming me for "not securing my car from theft" is just wrong.

"Flat out wrong." Okay, then suggest a different system. Who should pay for the damage to the innocent person, and why?

And if "tough shit on that guy" is your answer, you have to explain why he gets the short end of the stick and the car owner doesn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'll take a crack at this cause I'm a little bored and a little more interested.

It seems rather unfair to blame one innocent person for the pains of another if both are blameless. That's my general starting point. So first of all, if the thief is known (and convicted of course), he should be held fully responsible. Otherwise, the two parties' insurance companies should pay, if both parties really are innocent victims.

Take my car -- I have a very low end '98 Civic. Non-power windows, non-power locks. I've broken into such cars with a coat hanger in 15 minutes before (my own cars, don't worry. locked the keys in), and I assume it's probably not too hard to hot-wire it or whatever. I've got decent insurance on it, 100/300, and I lock it when I'm not in it (except when I'm at home; but at work, for instance, I lock it). So I think I've taken reasonably responsible precautions.

Now, what happens if somebody spends the 15 minutes to steal it, and ends up crashing and causing more than $100k in damages? (And I won't even ask if my premiums go up; sounds like maybe they might, but I think they shouldn't for the same reason that I shouldn't be held liable for the >$100) Sure, the victim of the accident is an innocent victim, but aren't I just as innocent? I've taken every reasonable step to prevent someone from stealing my car, but just like someone can't stop a car from hitting his house 100%, I can't stop someone from stealing my car 100%.

In this case, I would propose that some fact finding was done to see if I took reasonable steps to prevent this. Was I insured? Is there evidence that my car was broken into (as opposed to me leaving it running while I did some errands)? Other factors? Similarly, we should make sure the victim of the crash took his necessary precautions -- is he insured, did he look both ways, etc. These factors should be weighed, and our two insurance companies should split the bill appropriately, from a default starting point of 50/50.

That's an interesting set of theories, with some holes I might come back and poke at later, but I'll start with the two biggest:

(1) The victim who got hit wasn't driving a car, he was a pedestrian. His automobile insurance company is absolutely not going to pay for half of his damages (i.e., medical expenses). His health insurer might pay for them up-front, but will want to subrogate that expense by finding someone else to reimburse them, since it certainly wasn't their fault or the fault of their policy holder. Without that reimbursement, you still have someone who shouldn't have to pay for what happened paying for what happened.

(2) Our hypothetical car thief probably has about five bucks, and no insurance of any kind. Just like with any lawsuit, you can have a verdict and a judgment, but if the defendant has no assets, a judgment doesn't mean much.

So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again. Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

Regarding #1, let me clarify that I didn't mean the victim's auto insurance necessarily, but rather the appropriate insurance -- auto if his car was hit, health if it was him, home, etc. And yeah, I'm sure that insurance company would love to get someone else to pay them, but if the thief is not known and convicted, I'd tell them, "sorry, you're in the business of paying for unforeseen and unavoidable damages, you're going to have to take this hit."

Regarding #2, well, what happens in general when a person with no money causes damages? I don't pretend to know the answer to that, but I don't see why the same can't apply here. If the answer generally is "the victim doesn't get paid," then unfortunately that's the answer I'm going to go with (for now) in this issue too.

So for now I'm going to stick with my original idea, though I'm sure there's other holes to pick at and maybe I'm just 100% off. As for why it's more fair, I would say that I just don't see how it's fair to make one innocent victim (the car owner) responsible, through no fault of his own, for the ills of another innocent victim (who got hit or had something of his hit).

If you don't mind Big Government and really want that innocent victim to get paid, have the government write him a check as sort of a last-ditch, catch-all insurance (again, assuming he did took reasonable steps to insure himself). The rationale then would be that if we're going to have somebody innocent pay for the victim's damages, why not spread it to *all* innocent taxpayers instead of just this one, whose car just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? I don't see the justice in making one guy the sucker instead of another.

Also keep in mind that the person whose car was stolen has his own, albeit probably more minor problems -- his car just got crashed. I assume the common response to his damages (and the one I'd go by personally is) "if he insured his car for damages, his insurance company pays. If he didn't, that sucks for him." Mind you, I'm saying that's what it should be even though my car is uninsured for damages. Just as the guy whose house broke my car -- through no fault of his own -- shouldn't to pay for the car, I think I whose car broke his house -- through no fault of my own -- shouldn't have to pay for the house.

Beeeej
So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again. Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

Honda for building the car and the government for building a substandard road? It's fairer because they have deeper pockets? Sorry, it's late.

I checked on a financial board that I frequent. I got this response:

Your liability coverage pays for losses for which you are legally liable. Therefore, if someone steals your car and does damage to someone else, you are not legally liable, so no claim would be paid under your liability coverage. (Your insurance carrier would defend you if you happened to be sued as a result of this accident).

MEK
(insurance claims person).

That was what I was hoping, but couldn't say for sure. If you check your auto insurance policy, it says that it covers people driving your car with your permission (may vary by state, I suppose, but I'd be kinda surprised).


So who pays? The victim's insurance... assuming they carry uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance, which they darn well should. Its very cheap (because the occurrence is rare). It costs me a total of $55/year for 100/300 on both of those parts - and thats in Mass with some of the highest rates in the nation.

Now that only covers bodily injury, so what covers the car? Well, collision, unfortunately. Which does mean you have to pay a deductible (although some states may waive it in certain conditions, which may cover this). If you don't carry collision, they you are knowingly taking a chance that an accident will make the car not worth repairing, or very expensive


Finally, if you don't cover un/underinsured, or you're not in your car, then the answer is your health insurance, which still could mean you'll owe a nice chunk of change in co-pays/co-insurance. So yet another reason its important to carry good coverages all around.

Beeeej

ugarte

KeithK

ugarte

mttgrmm
however in a civil suit you would still be liable for damages/injuries caused by your vehicle regardless of who was driving it.

You probably don't realize how broad this is. If someone steals your car and crashes it, you are liable for the damage caused.

Are you serious? If som, yet another reason why we need tort reform in this country. Geez. (I'd settle for narrow reforms that remove assinine liabilities like this.)

Yes. The policy is there to protect the most innocent person in the scenario: the person that the thief caused damage to. The logic goes that you are responsible for securing your car from theft, the car is insured and (theoretically), as the owner of the car you can sue the driver.


It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

The fact that I agree with this, and I work for an insurance defense firm, should tell you something. The largest medical malpractice insurers lost a bundle when the stock market "corrected" itself in 2000, and they need to make up the money somehow - and the only ways they can do it are 1) nickel and dime the law firms defending cases for them, and 2) jack up their premiums. Doctors and legislators are fed the standard "out of control, litigious society" party line, and enough of them believe it.

Texas passed some much-lauded, ground-breaking "tort reform" in 2003, limiting awards for non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000. That makes sense, right? Nobody should get a windfall for suffering, as long as their economic damages (e.g., medical bills, future medical bills, lost wages) are covered? Of course it makes sense, until you remember that plaintiff's attorneys work on contingency, and pay the costs of the lawsuit out of their own pockets, hopefully to be reimbursed by part of the award.

So now they know that at most, they'll get $83,333 from non-economic damages, which means they have to have the highest possible economic damages to make it worthwhile to take a case and spend money fighting it. What has ended up happening is that the medical malpractice plaintiff's bar in Texas is only taking cases from plaintiffs who had high salaries prior to their injuries. So one of the main net effects of tort reform in Texas: Poor and lower middle-class victims of medical malpractice can't find lawyers to take their cases.

One of the biggest med mal insurers in Texas filed for a 19% rate increase in 2004 - the year after this "tort reform" was passed.

Despite the rate increases are the insurers making really great profits? It would seem that if they were then better capitalized companies would enter the market. Or are the regulatory issues too much of a barrier in which case wouldn't the government be partially to blame for reducing competition?

Beeeej
So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again. Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

Agsin, my answer is the thief if at all possible, for both medical expenses of the injured person and damges to the vehicle. If the thief cannot be made to pay then the injured person has to pay his own medical costs and the car owner has to pay for the vehicle. If either party has relevant insurance policies (health or auto) they can collect from their insurance companies. As ftyuv said, it's not fair to require the car owner, who is an inocent party, to have to pay for actions of another. I

Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it. Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either. I understand why there's an entire industry dedicated to doing so - there's lots of money in it. But that doesn't make it right. In this case hopefully Delta's quote is correct and the owner would not be legally liable.

BTW, I am not saying that injury lawsuits are always wrong. Wehn another party is actually to blame one should be able collect damages. I just think our legal system seems too eager to assign such responsibility often ignoring personal responsibility.

KeithK
Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it.

As I always say when this subject comes up: "The whole reason I have insurance is to pay me for damages when something happens, regardless of who's at fault."

At that point, my responsibility ends, and the insurance company can do whatever it likes (sue the responsible party, sue the owner of the car, sue God, repo possessions of the responsible party, etc.) to recuperate the money it paid me. Frankly, I don't care; that's their problem, and it's what I pay them premiums for.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose

KeithK
Sometimes in life shit happens and you have to deal with it.

As I always say when this subject comes up: "The whole reason I have insurance is to pay me for damages when something happens, regardless of who's at fault."

At that point, my responsibility ends, and the insurance company can do whatever it likes (sue the responsible party, sue the owner of the car, sue God, repo possessions of the responsible party, etc.) to recuperate the money it paid me. Frankly, I don't care; that's their problem, and it's what I pay them premiums for.

How about a game of Who Do You Sue?

BlackBerry tapping causes car-crunching chain reaction on I-5
[seattletimes.nwsource.com]

KeithK
Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either.

Couldn't have said it better - absolutely right. The thief is responsible; if he can't pay, then the chain ends there.

Robb

KeithK
Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either.

Couldn't have said it better - absolutely right. The thief is responsible; if he can't pay, then the chain ends there.

That's a valid opinion, I guess. But why is it fairer than the system already in place? "Life isn't fair" doesn't answer that question, and it's the only one ugarte and I really asked.

Someone who owns a car has bought insurance to cover himself; someone who is hit by a car may not have any insurance at all for anything, even medical expenses. You may say, and would even be right, that it isn't "fair" for the car owner's insurance company to be forced to pay for the victim's damages if the thief cannot pay them - but why is it "fairer" to force the victim to pay for them?

The legislatures and courts had a choice to make, and as ugarte said, they chose to place the burden on corporations that had already chosen calculated risk as a business model. Perhaps we all pay slightly higher premiums as a result, but if the victim were forced to pay and had no insurance and no money, we'd be helping pay for his expenses through higher medical costs (and/or higher taxes, in the "government should write the checks" model) anyway. Even if he had insurance, we'd be paying higher premiums as a result.

You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...

Beeeej
You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...

I don't think this is necessary: I think it's perfectly okay to draw a firm line based on some principle (whatever that is) and saying that anyone beyond that line is simply not liable.

In this case, a line to draw is between the thief and the owner, because the thief (by definition) did not obtain permission to use the car and require the owner to employ judgment about whether or not to allow that person to borrow the car.

Furthermore, I don't think what you ask is possible: "fair" is unfortunately not well-defined. Any two people may order two solutions differently in terms of "fairness," so what are we left with?

This is where I say "let the market deal with it," because the market will come up with multiple optimal solutions based on community metrics, where those metrics will vary from place to place. That's perfectly fine by me. Why do we need one grand unified solution that everyone must agree to? This will inevitably lead to conflict and is entirely unnecessary.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose

Beeeej
You can dislike the current system all you want, but unless the one you propose is fairer...

I don't think this is necessary: I think it's perfectly okay to draw a firm line based on some principle (whatever that is) and saying that anyone beyond that line is simply not liable.

As I said, it may be a perfectly valid opinion and it may be the system you prefer. But most of the objections to the current state of affairs as ugarte described it were how unfair it is to the car owner. So I'm interested in knowing how alternative systems are fairer. That's all. It's the conversation I chose.

You can talk about principle and the marketplace (which, by the way, inherently includes the dispute resolution system the market has chosen to use, a.k.a. the courts) if you like, but I'll be over here waiting for someone who objects to the current system on the basis of its unfairness to propose a fairer system.

I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Insurance is not only to protect us from our own mistakes, but those of others.


As far as government intervention goes, they could require one of two things. First, they could require insurance to pay in the case of someone stealing your car, etc. Second, they could simply make un/underinsured motorist insurance compulsory to some level. The second is already done in many places (my uninsured in compulsory here in Mass, although under- isn't - of course I upped the level significantly).

In either case, everyone pays increased premiums. The difference is probably pretty small. As an alternative, we all pay through the medical system for unpaid claims.

I have no issue with making modest levels of important things compulsory, but if its not, the victim still made the conscious choice not to protect themselves from such an instance.


Which reminds me vaguely of the gulf coast situation with people who didn't buy flood insurance (which is already substantially subsidized). I feel bad, I really do... but if you chose not to cover yourself, there's only so much that can be done after the fact.

DeltaOne81
I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money. How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance? (And unrelated, but you brought it up - how many people on the Gulf Coast really had a "choice" to purchase flood insurance - or to move elsewhere if they couldn't afford flood insurance?)

Beeeej
Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money. How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance?

Let's make things a little clearer by assigning names:

Alice = thief
Bob = victim
Carl = car owner

How does Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability suddenly make Carl responsible for Alice's theft and subsequent accident? I.e., why should Carl be less responsible for the accident when Alice can pay than when she cannot?

If the answer is that Carl should be less responsible in that circumstance, then I'd ask you why.

If the answer is that Carl should NOT be less responsible in that circumstance, then I'd ask you why Carl should be at all responsible for the independent action of Bob not to have health insurance.

It seems pretty clear to me that damages and responsible parties should be the same whether Bob has health insurance or not: if he has health insurance, he collects from them, and his insurance co. then turns around and attempts to collect from the responsible parties, whoever they may be; if he lacks health insurance, he attempts to collect directly from the responsible parties, whoever they may be. In either case, the responsible parties are THE SAME.

Kyle

Beeeej

DeltaOne81
I think there has to be a level of personal responsibility here (I know, I now, that buzz word). That being the responsibility of the victim in this case to have purchased adequate insurance in the first place (un/underinsured motorist). If they refused to, why should that be on the plate of a person (insurer) who had absolutely nothing to do with the accident.

Once again, picture a victim who was a pedestrian, not the driver of another car.

And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money. How much of a "conscious choice" is he making not to purchase health insurance? (And unrelated, but you brought it up - how many people on the Gulf Coast really had a "choice" to purchase flood insurance - or to move elsewhere if they couldn't afford flood insurance?)

There is Medicaid for the poor. Sure it's not a great system and could be improved. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than put the responsibility on the insurance company.

krose
Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability...

...makes me tune out from anything else you might have to say in probably about the same measure as Ben Rocky mocking you made you tune him out.

Not to say you might not have valid points, but why bother?

krose
It seems pretty clear to me that damages and responsible parties should be the same whether Bob has health insurance or not:

This more or less comes down to setting policy about sharing risk before the fact because a set of hard rules about liability leads to less litigation than allocation of blame in individual cases.


I think doing so is a good idea and a net social plus. I assume that you think it is nanny-statist and the result of giving the government too much power. That is where the real dispute lies, not over who we think is most or least blameless in the particular a-b-c example you gave.

Beeeej

krose
Bob's irresponsibility in not having health insurance/disability...

...makes me tune out from anything else you might have to say in probably about the same measure as Ben Rocky mocking you made you tune him out.

Not to say you might not have valid points, but why bother?

Not sure what the issue here is: if a person doesn't look after him/herself, and no one else is explicitly responsible for doing so, who is responsible? I assure you that I am not, whether the government says I am or not.

There's no difference between food, water, shelter, and health care in my opinion: they are all needs that someone must either provide for him/herself or arrange to have provided for him or her. Health care exists primarily to provide for those "oh, shit!" scenarios when either something unexpected happens or another party responsible for some health-impacting action is unable to pick up the tab. That's why it's irresponsible not to have it unless you are filthy rich or are simply willing to accept the consequences.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
There's no difference between food, water, shelter, and health care in my opinion: they are all needs that someone must either provide for him/herself or arrange to have provided for him or her. Health care exists primarily to provide for those "oh, shit!" scenarios when either something unexpected happens or another party responsible for some health-impacting action is unable to pick up the tab. That's why it's irresponsible not to have it unless you are filthy rich or are simply willing to accept the consequences.

I am a graduate student at Cornell. If I graduate and fail to find a job immediately, I will not be able to afford health insurance. I am not willing to accept the consequences, nor am I filthy rich. This makes me irresponsible? You can bet your life I'll be doing everything I can to find a job, but if I don't get a job with benefits pretty much right out of the gate next August, how am I "irresponsible" for not having health insurance? I'm fortunate - I have a family to fall back on, but not everyone is in my position. In what way are they irresponsible?

The point is, in this country, decent health insurance is a *luxury* that only the affluent can reasonably afford. There are a lot of people who can only afford health insurance because their companies pay for it. They get laid off and suddenly they've got 6 months of incredibly expensive COBRA coverage - which is still cheaper than standard insurance plans - followed by a whole lot of nothing. If they do not find employment which includes benefits (or a substantial increase in pay) within that 6 month window, many of these responsible, hard-working Americans will not be able to maintain decent health coverage.

I assume this is what Beeeej was referring to with his comment above.

So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?

Tom Lento
I am a graduate student at Cornell. If I graduate and fail to find a job immediately, I will not be able to afford health insurance. I am not willing to accept the consequences, nor am I filthy rich. This makes me irresponsible?

Okay, so in addition to those three categories, there's another category of "really want insurance but are not able to afford due to life as a perpetual student."

I guess I see life choices that reduce income that would otherwise be available for health care---having children, buying expensive cars, or choosing a profession with intermittent/sparse employment opportunities---as part of "irresponsibility," though maybe that word is a bit too strong. You acknowledge the problem that you may have a hard time getting insurance after your student insurance runs out... and yet it sounds like you'd rather live without insurance than get a job you don't want that offers health care benefits, probably because you know you can fall back on the government (i.e., the rest of us) to pay for it.

Despite all the above analysis, however, I'm sure there do exist plenty of people who made all the right life choices with respect to health insurance and still did not have any at the least opportune time. This is unfortunate, not irresponsible, so my original statement was clearly incomplete.

But the inability or unwillingness to pay is only one of the two key issues here. The other half is that theft is always wrong. And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things). Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

Someone being in unfortunate circumstances does not justify theft. Plain and simple, nothing justifies theft. Of course someone with a starving family may resort to theft to feed them, but he or she must accept the consequences of that action if he or she is caught. Legalizing theft removes this disincentive to immoral action. Add this to the list of reasons why government sucks.

The proper answer to people who are unable to pay for their own needs is charity. Charity's voluntary nature is precisely what distinguishes charity from taxation.

Cheers,
Kyle

Tom Lento
So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?

Because the administration has gone TOO far!!!!!!

double post, sorry

KeithK

Tom Lento
So, um, why isn't this in the John Spencer forum yet?

Because the administration has gone TOO far!!!!!!

LOL.

Yeah, we should probably either kill this, or move it over there...

Kyle

Beeeej
And if it helps, picture a victim who has very little money.

Well, what about the person with relatively little money whose car got stolen? What happens if somebody steals my car, crashes into a school bus and causes waaay more than the $100k-per-incident in damages that I'm covered for? I have a job that pays decently and a bit of money in the bank, but that kind of an accident would destroy me if it fell on my head.

If Alice steals Carl's car and crashes it into Bob, Carl is not part of the story's main plotline. Making him part of the plot, and especially as a responsible party, is unfair. Therefore, a system which avoids this is fairer.

The question of universal health care is orthogonal.

krose
But the inability or unwillingness to pay is only one of the two key issues here. The other half is that theft is always wrong. And taxation is morally equivalent to theft (among other things). Just because you need something doesn't mean that I am morally obligated to pay for it, and yet I am forced to because the government has threatened to throw me in jail if I don't.

This is where you're basically going to split with most others here, and where there basically is no particular bridge to compromise or agreement.

And I'm not even talking about 'taxation is theft' part, which is what probably jumps out, but about the one step back rationale behind that.

The difference is that I, for one, believe that as a society we do indeed have a moral obligation to make sure that all are taken care of to some basic level of eneed. If people in our society need something, and are suffering because they don't have it, then we all share some moral responsibility to our collective failure to provide an environment that can supply everyone that need.

Now, I am not saying that the answer is always taxation (personally I feel that should be a last resort), but that doesn't mean there is any greater social moral responsibility to find solutions to a problem. And health care in this country is a biggy. That doesn't mean nationalized, or single payer necessarily, but some solution (MassHealth is an interesting start, but only addresses one part of the problem).

I'm not saying this to convince you, but merely to point out where the basic fundamental philosophical break is. I believe that everyone in society has an obligation to those around them to find solutions to the problems confronting the society (again, I generally prefer market-based solutions to tax-based ones, but still). You believe in a much more every-man-for-himself-not-my-problem philosophy (well beyond even that of conservative economics it seems). And so we vote .

I've continued this over in [elf.elynah.com]

Kyle

nyc94

Beeeej
So, now, go back to the beginning and answer again. Who should pay, why, and why is it fairer than the real world's answer?

Honda for building the car and the government for building a substandard road? It's fairer because they have deeper pockets? Sorry, it's late.

Honda for building a car that's so damn easy to steal. For many years, that was one of the reasons they kept making the top ten stolen list.

ugarte
It is burden shifting from the innocent person who didn't assume any risk to an agent who did (the insurance company) and more logical than people think when they first hear it.

Tort reform is a bunch of bullshit driven by insurance company lobbyists. Most of the famous cases of runaway juries are either (a) complete fiction; (b) a kernel of truth surrounded by lots of fiction; or (c) fake cumulative statistics.

1. Tort reform is bullshit for exactly the reasons stated.

2. I thought the purpose of the burden-shifting cited in your example was economic efficiency -- sue the party most able to pay (the insurance company). The idea, which I've always been uncomfortable with, is that over time the systemic effect will be distributing the recovery cost for the theft-accident damages back across the entire population of the insured, without biasing in favor of a particular insurer. The further thought is that individual insurers are incentified to, say, give price breaks for vehicles with anti-theft devices, since they would pay out fewer claims over time, and thus theft as a whole would decrease as a result of the liability law.

I've never been really happy with that sort of legal functionalism, but it seems to have been fashionable for the last 30-40 years of American jurisprudence.

I'm sure someone who actually made it past the 10 week mark of law school can comment far more knowledgably.

Greg, we've moved. Get with the program!

Just tell them that you sold all your tickets and that you do not have them to return them. You are very sorry. What can they do about that.

Beeeej

Robb

KeithK
Life isn't fair, but trying to pin your misfortune on others isn't fair either.

Couldn't have said it better - absolutely right. The thief is responsible; if he can't pay, then the chain ends there.

You may say, and would even be right, that it isn't "fair" for the car owner's insurance company to be forced to pay for the victim's damages if the thief cannot pay them - but why is it "fairer" to force the victim to pay for them?

The legislatures and courts had a choice to make,...

So the government, who would have to pay the medical expenses of some poor soul hit by the impoverished car thief, has shifted their Medicaid costs to the insurance companies. Does this surprise anyone?