Excellent change, we're too litigious in general.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
22 points (95.8% liked)
Oregon
334 readers
1 users here now
Oregon's Lemmy Community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Oh, perfect! Less accountability is surely the way forward! Go, humans, go! 🤦🏽♂️
edit: the simplistic hyperbole y'all react with is juvenile and unbefitting the nuance of this argument, but I hope your impotent internet points help you find some sort of value in life. You clearly need it. 🤗😚
The woods are wild. The only way to eliminate danger would be to completely get rid of them. This protects owners of land from people expressing their freedom to roam. If some jackass tries to climb a natural rock face 30 acres into your 100 acres and you don’t catch them and they fall and hurt themselves, why the fuck do you think it should be your fault and not the jackass. Perhaps you think all land should be closed off to everyone and through hikers should be stopped to sign a liability waiver every quarter mile?
Assumed risk is a thing. Should an owner of a hiking trail be responsible for removing every comprehensible hazard on their land? Maybe carpet the entire thing in foam padding?
I sprained my ankle in such situations many times in my youth. I don't recall any response other than grumbling to myself that I should've been more careful.
Something like water on the floor of a supermarket aisle would not fall under assumed risk in that a reasonable person would expect that environment to be free from hazard.
One thing that stands out to me when traveling is how "unsafe" public spaces are, like national parks not having fences and rails everywhere. Most countries just assume you're not going to step off the edge.
Yea you should be able to sue the owner of a wet bridge you slipped on.
Surely that's the more "accountable" solution.