View Full Version : Thank you Lawyers!
Tim the Toolman
2 Jul 2007, 09:44
Again on the weekend another great little 'happy' thing in life has been abolished because of OH&S and our litigious society.
Players are not allowed to kick footballs into the crowd after a game due to OH&S regulations.
I want a thread to outline all of the things we used to take for granted and enjoy that are now no longer around because of freakin' lawyers and our "Nanny Society." Such as (feel free to add please):
1) Kicking footballs into the crowd after a game of footy!
2) Kicking footballs to each other outside the footy after a game (this happens at Telstra Dome in Melbourne and may be the same at other venues outside of Victoria)
Lady Lawrence
2 Jul 2007, 09:47
wonder how long it will be before they stop the run onto the field and kick the footy after the game at the Gabba. Whilst obviously a lot of fun for people you are taking your life in your hands if you decide to take a shortcut across the ground to exit from another gate.
lionbear
2 Jul 2007, 10:02
Are the players allowed to habd them to kids on the fence? I think that it is a bit silly you can't kick football's into the crowd.
I wonder hoe long it is before a Net is permantly put up behind the goal so when a goal or behind is kicked it doesn't fly into the crowd. If you don't go to a game of footy expecting balls to come into the crowd and be ready for it you shouldn't go.
Kochie 16
2 Jul 2007, 10:11
Bunch of sooks! (The Lawyers) Grow up!
Tim the Toolman
2 Jul 2007, 10:20
Solicitor are we Kochie?
Tim the Toolman
2 Jul 2007, 10:21
1) Kicking footballs into the crowd after a game of footy!
2) Kicking footballs to each other outside the footy after a game (this happens at Telstra Dome in Melbourne and may be the same at other venues outside of Victoria)
3) boring playgrounds for kids
Kochie 16
2 Jul 2007, 10:32
I was talking about the 'lawyers'! Apologies to everyone who took it the wrong way.
TheBrownDog
2 Jul 2007, 12:29
I was reading the other day that kids aren't allowed to set up stalls (lemonade, car washes etc) on their front lawn anymore without having public liability insurance.
Tim the Toolman
2 Jul 2007, 15:01
Add it to the list. Are we not getting this thread?
1) Kicking footballs into the crowd after a game of footy!
2) Kicking footballs to each other outside the footy after a game (this happens at Telstra Dome in Melbourne and may be the same at other venues outside of Victoria)
3) boring playgrounds for kids
4) No lemonade stands
notting18
2 Jul 2007, 16:03
As a future lawyer....at least 1/2 of the points so far have politicians to blame;)
They make the stupid restrictive laws and regulations..lawyers cop the blame as they have to put a face to enforcing the laws. Although poor lawyers do lead to a simplistic approach to interpretations, so there is some blame.
Also, on the initial post i think the AFL has banned them kicking footballs into the crowd/taking shots before the game once the nets have been taking down. As long as thats the point they are enforcing, and it is not extended, i have to say i support it as they are given plenty of opportunity to have their practice shots until 3mins before the game and the nets come down and it is a safety issue (which is why the nets are up). The only other way around it would be too leave the nets up all game...which is lame..or take em down during the game and that is dangerous (happened during the bris vs geelong game and almost hit milburn for some reason)
TheBrownDog
2 Jul 2007, 20:17
As a future lawyer....at least 1/2 of the points so far have politicians to blame;)
I'd be more likely to blame judges making baseless interpretations and setting ridiculous precedents.
Leave us pollies alone! ;)
notting18
2 Jul 2007, 20:41
I'd be more likely to blame judges making baseless interpretations and setting ridiculous precedents.
Leave us pollies alone! ;)
If the precedents are so ridiculous....u pollies can just override and change the law;).
We could go all day/week/month/year on this, and like all good lawyers/politicians we should continue with our favourite past time (passing the buck!)! haha
blynd_freddie
2 Jul 2007, 21:45
I'd be more likely to blame judges making baseless interpretations and setting ridiculous precedents.
Leave us pollies alone! ;)
If the precedents are so ridiculous....u pollies can just override and change the law;).
We could go all day/week/month/year on this, and like all good lawyers/politicians we should continue with our favourite past time (passing the buck!)! haha
Ohhh how cute, role-playing already!
The right honorable member for Dog-on-Avon in the want a blue corner and our apprentice Knott Sir Lunchalot in the shirazed red corner.
You just gotta love stereotypes, please keep it coming. :thumbsu: :D
TheBrownDog
2 Jul 2007, 21:52
If the precedents are so ridiculous....u pollies can just override and change the law;).
Until some toffee nosed High Court Justice declares our actions unconstitutional!
More pollies, less lawyers!
notting18
2 Jul 2007, 22:36
Until some toffee nosed High Court Justice declares our actions unconstitutional!
More pollies, less lawyers!
If there was a world with no lawyers there would be no pollies.....Howard, Costello, Barry Jones and the like! haha
Tim the Toolman
3 Jul 2007, 11:15
I can't help but think of that Simpsons Episode where Lionel Hutz considers a world without lawyers and you see this image of everyone holding hands and singing happily together - his response is utter repulse.
Seriously, there are few professions out there that we could do without that would make everyone be happy but I guess you need lawyers two times in your life:
1) when you die
2) when you buy (real estate)
stickman11
3 Jul 2007, 11:27
Bunch of sooks! (The Lawyers) FFS Grow up!
Said in that squeeky high pitched voice. SOOOOKS
Timmy
Seeing as you were employed by lawyers at one time, could it be you hold some sort of grudge?
Didnt Andrea's side benefits appeal to you?
carntheroos4eva
3 Jul 2007, 11:46
Again on the weekend another great little 'happy' thing in life has been abolished because of OH&S and our litigious society.
Players are not allowed to kick footballs into the crowd after a game due to OH&S regulations.
I want a thread to outline all of the things we used to take for granted and enjoy that are now no longer around because of freakin' lawyers and our "Nanny Society." Such as (feel free to add please):
1) Kicking footballs into the crowd after a game of footy!
2) Kicking footballs to each other outside the footy after a game (this happens at Telstra Dome in Melbourne and may be the same at other venues outside of Victoria)
Tim,
Sorry to butt in here and ruin your thread but get over it. Really why make such a fuss over everything that happens. It makes you look dumb and it possibly embarrasses your fellow supporters to see somebody kicking up a fuss about this. To be honest you probably wouldn't be able to kick the footy outside the ground when people are trying to get out of the place in the first place.
You aren't allowed on the ground after the game is finished because you could injure a player, official or umpire or even yourself.
Players aren't allowed to kick footys into the crowd because a few people got injured from the ball hitting them on the head.
TheBrownDog
3 Jul 2007, 12:36
Tim,
Sorry to butt in here and ruin your thread but get over it. Really why make such a fuss over everything that happens. It makes you look dumb and it possibly embarrasses your fellow supporters to see somebody kicking up a fuss about this. To be honest you probably wouldn't be able to kick the footy outside the ground when people are trying to get out of the place in the first place.
You aren't allowed on the ground after the game is finished because you could injure a player, official or umpire or even yourself.
Players aren't allowed to kick footys into the crowd because a few people got injured from the ball hitting them on the head.
Seems like you are making a fuss over Tim making a fuss.
He's not the only person concerned about how over-litigious and regulated our lives have become.
Thought it was a good topic to discuss myself.
bluebrew
3 Jul 2007, 12:40
If there was a world with no lawyers there would be no pollies.....Howard, Costello, Barry Jones and the like! haha
Considering a large percentage of pollies are lawyers and accountants its no wonder they keep their professions busy.
Lionsman
3 Jul 2007, 18:24
I can't help but think of that Simpsons Episode where Lionel Hutz considers a world without lawyers and you see this image of everyone holding hands and singing happily together - his response is utter repulse.
Seriously, there are few professions out there that we could do without that would make everyone be happy but I guess you need lawyers two times in your life:
1) when you die
2) when you buy (real estate)
Why would you need a lawyer if you were dead? Not too much they could do for you in a pine box!
Dr Pea P.I
3 Jul 2007, 18:35
Soon we wont even be able to bring in our own alcohol. The day that happens, i will be on the lemonade.
notting18
3 Jul 2007, 18:47
Soon we wont even be able to bring in our own alcohol. The day that happens, i will be on the lemonade.
That is a joke doc yeah? - In melbourne we aren't;) allowed;) to do that, and if your allowed that up in Brisbane im leaving my 6 buk mid stength beers behind and moving!
Dr Pea P.I
3 Jul 2007, 19:15
Yeah, sorry Notting18; sometimes i cannot help myself. I am actually from Melbourne (so not sure when the BYO was canceled out in QLD) but do remember when i was a youngster, my father and uncles bringing their own beers and putting me on cans to see over the crowd.
Still, many people do smuggle in their own booze still. With the increase in prices (at the ground) i do not blame them.
TheBrownDog
3 Jul 2007, 19:20
That is a joke doc yeah? - In melbourne we aren't;) allowed;) to do that, and if your allowed that up in Brisbane im leaving my 6 buk mid stength beers behind and moving!
Can't bring our own alcohol up here, but beers only cost $5.50 at the Gabba and they have full-strength!
FattyLumpkin
3 Jul 2007, 19:37
Players aren't allowed to kick footys into the crowd because a few people got injured from the ball hitting them on the head.
In my best Maggie Thatcher impersonation....
"Who are these people? Name them.
'cos I've never heard of a major 'incident'
The backbone of small country towns were the cake stalls by the CWA ladies, footy clubs etc to raise money for their communities, not anymore........not hygenic, might poison someone...ridiculous!!
Tim,
Sorry to butt in here and ruin your thread but get over it. Really why make such a fuss over everything that happens. It makes you look dumb and it possibly embarrasses your fellow supporters to see somebody kicking up a fuss about this. To be honest you probably wouldn't be able to kick the footy outside the ground when people are trying to get out of the place in the first place.
You aren't allowed on the ground after the game is finished because you could injure a player, official or umpire or even yourself.
Players aren't allowed to kick footys into the crowd because a few people got injured from the ball hitting them on the head.
Tim wasn't making a fuss, merely pointing out these things, which are FACTS, and then asking for discussion. If you are going to come on here, would be appreciated if you at least posted in a friendlier manner, the words DUMB, FUSS and GET OVER IT are not necessary, and I certainly dont feel embarrassed by things he said...aggressive attitude not welcome
The Flying Belgian
3 Jul 2007, 20:13
I accidentally looked at the sun yesterday and had a bright spot in my eyes for a good 10 minutes. Who can I sue and for how much? I hear that God fella has a bit tied up in the sharemarket.
Good thread Tim. WH&S is a drain on our economy. The amount of money that's put towards it is criminal.
Next thing you know, golf will be played with netting around the course and home runs will be illegal in baseball.
Btw, BrownDog, you've got that buck-passing thing down pat already! :D
notting18
4 Jul 2007, 00:09
Can't bring our own alcohol up here, but beers only cost $5.50 at the Gabba and they have full-strength!
Hmmm i might just stay with my full strength "water";) in melbourne then.
Tim the Toolman
4 Jul 2007, 13:04
Timmy
Seeing as you were employed by lawyers at one time, could it be you hold some sort of grudge?
Didnt Andrea's side benefits appeal to you?
Man, where's the history lesson here? Jo's side benefits were far better! :p
Yeah, and I'll ahve you know I was working at the solicitors I was also the main instigator of the lawyer jokes!
This whole thread is all about getting some dumb-ass laws out there that we've got to thank our litigious society yet it seems to have boiled over as usual.
Tim the Toolman
4 Jul 2007, 13:06
Why would you need a lawyer if you were dead? Not too much they could do for you in a pine box!
Probate / Will
Tim the Toolman
4 Jul 2007, 13:25
Tim wasn't making a fuss, merely pointing out these things, which are FACTS, and then asking for discussion. If you are going to come on here, would be appreciated if you at least posted in a friendlier manner, the words DUMB, FUSS and GET OVER IT are not necessary, and I certainly dont feel embarrassed by things he said...aggressive attitude not welcome
Has that post been removed? I've never seen it.
It is an interesting debate. I agree that the law and the broader system of insurance and compensation is, as a general statement, too easily manipulated by the plaintiff. There is a balance between the rights of a plaintiff to compensation and the broader interests of the community in having a less litigious society. It is a hard balance to strike and legislators and the judiciary often get it wrong.
If a spectator was genuinely hurt during the pre-game warm-up, or players kicking balls into the crowd post-game, then there's an argument that for a small cost, those injuries could have been prevented. If the injury suffered was such that the person could no longer work (let's say, a spinal injury caused by someone falling on them from behind), then it would be tough to leave that person without compensation. So who pays? The law says that it is the person who owed the victim a duty of care, who breached that duty and whose breach of duty caused the injury. The guy in the crowd who stupidly launches himself onto the victim would probably be liable, but he's got little money and no insurance. The club/ground owner, although they can't help the actions of idiots, could have done something fairly simple that would have helped prevent the injury from occurring - although you can't plan for every eventuality. In any event, they make a commercial decision to take out insurance to protect them from these types of unusual incidents because they are involved in a somewhat risky business. So they (insurer and/or club/ground operator) will wear the cost of compensating the victim.
But if you change the law and that prevents the poor bloke with a spinal injury from seeking compensation, then that also produces a manifestly unfair result. So, on one hand, you have the enjoyment of thousands of footy fans which has been reduced due to the need to limit legal exposure. Although, the reduction of enjoyment is probably only minimal in the greater scheme of things - one of those changes that you complain about when it happens but come to just accept as part of going to the footy. On the other hand, you have the right of individuals to be safe and the obligation of others to ensure their safety. How often is someone going to be seriously hurt because of footballs being kicked to the crowd? Not very often. But can you see that it could well happen? It certainly is a possibility.
As I said, it is a hard balance to strike. Slip and trip incidents at shopping centres and other quasi-public places make up a significant proportion of personal injuries claims. Certainly, some people (including plaintiff lawyers) take full advantage of the system - insurers will pay out on demand in those instances. The individual might not be that hurt but it doesn't stop them from pursuing all the damages under the sun. But you wouldn't change the liability of the shopping centre owners because of the "rorters" as that could impact on those who are genuinely incapacitated due to the negligence of the centre owners.
As much as the law, lawyers and politicians are at fault, there is something to be said for society's honesty and fairness, or lack thereof. And while it remains more economically viable for insurance companies to pay all but the dodgiest of claims, then we won't change too much. When insurers make payouts, clients pay more in premiums, which means that the public pays higher prices. So society pays for society's dishonesty.
The law is an ass - and in public liability, it is even more so. As a lawyer, albeit one that has never practised in negligence (although I've probably negligently practised once or twice!), I know that the legal fraternity takes full advantage, whether acting for plaintiff or defendant. But the reality is, a lot of law firms would go broke if society changed its view on its entitlements to compensation and approached law suits from an honest position. Yeah right.
So, when there's no real legal or legislative solution, and society is never going to change, we are left with a manageable system which creates occasional absurdities.
PS - I am currently working in a non-legal role so I can say that all (practising) lawyers are ****wits!
Johnny Utah #9
4 Jul 2007, 14:54
It is an interesting debate. I agree that the law and the broader system of insurance and compensation is, as a general statement, too easily manipulated by the plaintiff. There is a balance between the rights of a plaintiff to compensation and the broader interests of the community in having a less litigious society. It is a hard balance to strike and legislators and the judiciary often get it wrong.
If a spectator was genuinely hurt during the pre-game warm-up, or players kicking balls into the crowd post-game, then there's an argument that for a small cost, those injuries could have been prevented. If the injury suffered was such that the person could no longer work (let's say, a spinal injury caused by someone falling on them from behind), then it would be tough to leave that person without compensation. So who pays? The law says that it is the person who owed the victim a duty of care, who breached that duty and whose breach of duty caused the injury. The guy in the crowd who stupidly launches himself onto the victim would probably be liable, but he's got little money and no insurance. The club/ground owner, although they can't help the actions of idiots, could have done something fairly simple that would have helped prevent the injury from occurring - although you can't plan for every eventuality. In any event, they make a commercial decision to take out insurance to protect them from these types of unusual incidents because they are involved in a somewhat risky business. So they (insurer and/or club/ground operator) will wear the cost of compensating the victim.
But if you change the law and that prevents the poor bloke with a spinal injury from seeking compensation, then that also produces a manifestly unfair result. So, on one hand, you have the enjoyment of thousands of footy fans which has been reduced due to the need to limit legal exposure. Although, the reduction of enjoyment is probably only minimal in the greater scheme of things - one of those changes that you complain about when it happens but come to just accept as part of going to the footy. On the other hand, you have the right of individuals to be safe and the obligation of others to ensure their safety. How often is someone going to be seriously hurt because of footballs being kicked to the crowd? Not very often. But can you see that it could well happen? It certainly is a possibility.
As I said, it is a hard balance to strike. Slip and trip incidents at shopping centres and other quasi-public places make up a significant proportion of personal injuries claims. Certainly, some people (including plaintiff lawyers) take full advantage of the system - insurers will pay out on demand in those instances. The individual might not be that hurt but it doesn't stop them from pursuing all the damages under the sun. But you wouldn't change the liability of the shopping centre owners because of the "rorters" as that could impact on those who are genuinely incapacitated due to the negligence of the centre owners.
As much as the law, lawyers and politicians are at fault, there is something to be said for society's honesty and fairness, or lack thereof. And while it remains more economically viable for insurance companies to pay all but the dodgiest of claims, then we won't change too much. When insurers make payouts, clients pay more in premiums, which means that the public pays higher prices. So society pays for society's dishonesty.
The law is an ass - and in public liability, it is even more so. As a lawyer, albeit one that has never practised in negligence (although I've probably negligently practised once or twice!), I know that the legal fraternity takes full advantage, whether acting for plaintiff or defendant. But the reality is, a lot of law firms would go broke if society changed its view on its entitlements to compensation and approached law suits from an honest position. Yeah right.
So, when there's no real legal or legislative solution, and society is never going to change, we are left with a manageable system which creates occasional absurdities.
PS - I am currently working in a non-legal role so I can say that all (practising) lawyers are ****wits!
Excuse my ignorance, but can't we just have a sign at every entry into the ground that says the ground manager accepts no liabilty for any injury caused by football's flying to the crowd and that all patrons enter at their own risk.
This whole litigious society thing would be fixed if judges threw out a lot of these rubbish cases. For example, a couple of years ago some d i c k head in Sydney who swam OUTSIDE the flags at the beach, dove in the water head first and hit a sand bar. It left him a quadraplegic. He then sued the local council for something like $6,000,000. I feel sorry for the guy, but it was no one's fault but his. End of story.
Tim the Toolman
4 Jul 2007, 15:11
I totally agree. We live in a society where nobody takes any ownership of their own problems i.e. it's always somebody else's fault.
There's no responsibility, for example: Alan Didak, you're taking alcohol counselling, you are not allowed to drink alcohol to keep your job, must be home by 1am etc... "Do you have an alcohol problem" "No"
wtf???
Excuse my ignorance, but can't we just have a sign at every entry into the ground that says the ground manager accepts no liabilty for any injury caused by football's flying to the crowd and that all patrons enter at their own risk.
You'll probably find there is something on your ticket or in the conditions of purchase which says something like the ground operator denies all liability. Those sort of things aren't very effective. What does "enter at your own risk" actually mean? Does it mean that the ground operator/owner takes no responsibility for what happens when you walk in the gate? The flying footy is an extreme example of where duty of care might arise, but what about ensuring that seats don't collapse under patrons because there's been no maintenance done? Or making sure that there's no syringes in the food served? As I said, it is a balance, and the law would never allow someone to absolve themselves of all responsibility based on a notice. The footy is not a dangerous past-time - you don't go to the footy with an expectation that you could be hurt....unlike playing footy where if you just cop the bad luck of an injury your rights at law are limited (unless you are paid to play in which case workers comp kicks in).
This whole litigious society thing would be fixed if judges threw out a lot of these rubbish cases.
I agree with this and, to the credit of the judiciary, there has been a very obvious move away from those ridiculous suits. The courts have started to recognise that people have to take responsibility for their own safety. If there is an obvious risk of injury and the person continues regardless of that risk, then the court will not look favourably on the guy who took the risk. Again, balance is the key.
For example, a couple of years ago some d i c k head in Sydney who swam OUTSIDE the flags at the beach, dove in the water head first and hit a sand bar. It left him a quadraplegic. He then sued the local council for something like $6,000,000. I feel sorry for the guy, but it was no one's fault but his. End of story.
"Diving" cases were all the rage a while ago. For a time, councils and governments copped it from these types of personal injuries claims. No matter what councils did to prevent accidents around rivers, beaches, rock pools etc, the court found that they needed to do more. There has been a big turnaround in the courts' view on diving cases which has resulted in a more common sense position being reached.
Without calling into question the story you raise, you need to be very careful about the media reports. Firstly, while he sued for $6M, the actual award of damages might not have been that high, either at first instance or on appeal. Secondly, the media report these stories as emotively as possible - there may have been more to the story (eg, in a similar case, the case had advertised that a certain dangerous beach area was available for swimming and the injured person relied on that info and was hurt.) Quite often, the courts find that the responsibility was shared - ie, the council should have done more to prevent the accident but the guy still did something stupid. In that instance, the council would only be required to contribute a proportion to damages.
On emotive reporting, if the person had not been awarded any money you could almost gurantee the story would have been about the poor quadraplegic kid who the heartless courts refused to pay!
I totally agree. We live in a society where nobody takes any ownership of their own problems i.e. it's always somebody else's fault.
I agree and the system (law, lawyers, courts, politicians, insurers and the public) allows that to happen. It is a hard one to change - a challenge that far greater legal minds than mine have failed in.
Lionsman
5 Jul 2007, 20:27
Probate / Will
Yeah but they arent really helping the dead person ,it is more of a case of them helping the benefactors.;)
Tim the Toolman
7 Jul 2007, 10:59
Now you're starting to argue like a lawyer!
Lionsman
10 Jul 2007, 18:23
Point taken
danielcan
10 Jul 2007, 18:38
Objection, your Honour!
Tim the Toolman
11 Jul 2007, 12:36
Contempt for holding an Essendon Beanie - off with your head!
Lady Lawrence
12 Jul 2007, 15:30
for the ridculousness of what people can get away with suing for check out this (http://www.stellaawards.com/) website.
danielcan
12 Jul 2007, 17:11
Don't have a beanie Timmy. :p
Tim the Toolman
16 Jul 2007, 15:27
Was it a scarf?
danielcan
16 Jul 2007, 20:34
Perhaps. Possibly a cap too. Maybe a guernsey even...
Kochie 16
17 Jul 2007, 16:25
Perhaps. Possibly a cap too. Maybe a guernsey even...
TREASON!:eek:
danielcan
17 Jul 2007, 18:24
What else am I expected to wear to Bombers games? Duh!