The Law Deleted

[bit_pattern]

Same. If you make a stupid decision that should be on your head.

 

[MrMeaner]

I agree with that. There are too many people out there who are willing to blame others for their misfortune, whether they bring it upon themselves or not.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the view that every person who suffers an inury should be entitled to compensation.

 

[WCEforeverman]

It's fortunate he only killed himself, and didn't take anyone else with him.

 

[MrMeaner]

Exactly. Compensation should only be granted if somebody was found to be negligent in some way - ie not following safety procedures, or simply if they had a genuine duty of care in which they breached.

The problem is that those who hold the opposite view from me will claim that if someone is injured, someone else must have been negligent. I can't agree. Sometimes it is the injured person's fault, sometimes it is just pure bad luck.

The judicial process should not be used as a quasi-welfare system.

 

[bit_pattern]

All road trauma comp is baked by the TAC insurance scheme (what you pay rego for) and considering the impact that road trauma has on the community at large I think comp is critical. Does anyone know if TAC compo gets paid out in cases of negligence or not?

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, I ws more thinking so if say you suffered significant trauma in a raod accident that was your fault, would you get a TAC compo payout? I'm only guessing to but I'd imagine not.

 

[MrMeaner]

All road trauma comp is baked by the TAC insurance scheme (what you pay rego for) and considering the impact that road trauma has on the community at large I think comp is critical. Does anyone know if TAC compo gets paid out in cases of negligence or not?

I am delving into my distant memories of torts law and seem to remember that it is a 'no fault' scheme. That is, it pays out in all situations. It, along with most states' workers' compensation schemes, were made no fault to overcome the perceived injustice and difficulties in people who are injured in road or workplace accidents having to prove that someone was at fault for their loss. It was a policy position introduced to provide certainty to injured persons, insurers etc.

There have been theoretical arguments about doing away with negligence claims throughout the legal system to be replaced with similar no fault schemes like this. If it is thought to be desirable to give every injured person compensation for their injuries, a system like this should be set up.

 

[MrMeaner]

Then the other problem of people "faking" injury claims, like with many workers on workers comp.

I agree. I am not advocating it. I'm just saying that if we want a system in which each and every person is compensated for being injured regardless of how they were injured, we need to consider a no fault system in some form

As I said above, I personally don't think that every injured person should be compensated for the injury.

 

[Chief]

Yeah, the guy chose his own path in this case. The lady in question would probably be best to team up with the publican to get some fund raising and awareness going to help support herself and help stop it happening again. But I doubt you'd be thinking straight at that point, specially if some ambulance-chaser got in your ear.

I wonder if an idea of time-lock key-safes might be a goer. Punter realises he is drunk, and is encouraged to lock his keys up. Safe opens after, say, 8 hours. So the decision is made when you've still got enough sense about you, and cannot be undone when you've got no sense about you. Don't make it mandatory but it might be a good commercial enterprise.