...] deputy editor Tory Maguire – who we saw recently pushing the insurance company line on personal injury – now comes charging in to defend Telstra for imposing an “administration fee” on [...

He clearly did not display best safe practice. But hey, niether did the parents…how about we all sue each others pants off and make a motza! Cash for lawyers all round bitches!!!

Why shouldn’t people be compensated if someone’s negligence causes them injury?

“People who should win Darwin awards get cash from well meaning people who just overlooked a certain aspect or did/could not forsee the method of injury.”

Um, no – foreseeability is an essential component of the tort of negligence. If it’s not reasonably foreseeable, it’s not negligent.

“This is why we have ridiculous warnings on consumer products.”
ANNOUNCER: Warning: tickets not to be taken internally.
HOMER: Because of me they have a warning!

No, not really. What “ridiculous warnings” do you have in mind? Example please. Some of them aren’t as ridiculous as they at first appear – warnings about traces of nuts, for example, are important in avoiding kids dying from anaphylactic shock. Silly warnings have nothing to do with the courts, and are more to do with corporations believing bullshit spin like this article.

Fred -
““The average tabloid reader is bombarded with these “OMG TEH COURTS HAVE GONE MAD” articles and will have forgotten all about this one within a few weeks” is what I meant to say…”

They’ll have forgotten the specifics, but they’ll remember the overall message of OMG TEH COURTS HAVE GONE MAD. Which is unfortunate, because they haven’t.

No, it won’t. How will you know anyway? Is there some kind of register where you will be able to check the rate at which sleepovers are occurring in the community? The average tabloid reader is bombarded with these “OMG TEH COURTS HAVE GONE MAD” articles and will have forgotten all about this one. In any case, if you can’t afford the insurance, you can’t afford the house. Relative to average mortgage payments, it doesn’t cost that much.

“fred p your wrong. You obviously are not smart enough to understand baldricks point. I do hope you enjoy paying your extra insurance however and I also wonder when the straw will come that breaks your back with regard to insurance affordability. Then you might learn to appreciate things from others viewpoints.”

The grammar- and syntax-challenged telling me how smart I am. That’s useful. Thanks. You have an inflated opinion of your own intelligence. No point bringing up the cost of insurance, as it is irrelevant to the discussion we are having which is about whether or not the judge made the correct decision in this case. The potential increase in the cost of insurance wasn’t something the judge was entitled to consider in coming to his decision, was it?

It appears to me that you feel you have a right to “affordable” housing insurance which trumps that of plaintiffs to be appropriately compensated in situations like those in the case we are discussing. Just don’t assume that everyone else is as self-interested as you are. I, for one, am not.

Consider yourself a willing victim of hysteria-mongering tabloid columnists.

Anytime you want to address the topic and try to demonstrate where the judge went wrong in deciding the case in favour of the plaintiff, please feel free.

Do we all need to get a formal risk assessment done for our own houses now?? The insurance industry gets constant business because people are afraid of being sued!

And in this case there were two versions of the story of how the child got the injury. I have no doubt that one or both of the children were coached by lawyers in how to present their story to give them the best opportunity of suing/not being sued. Bet these two families are not friends anymore.

Delicious deictic ambiguity ahoy! [/minorlinguistgasm]