Connecticut Segway Accident Illustrates Potential Danger - DigitalJournal.com (press

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by aricisom

Well, maybe it's that they think people who read such things can afford the price...

Well, I refuse to pay Elsevier's price in my own field, for example, the journal Artificial Intelligence.

But just so you know I'm not alone in these views, here's an NYT article on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sc...aboration.html

(Thanks to Reese Jones of Singularity University for the link).

[SegwayDan]

One point that has gone curiously missing in this thread is the profound stupidity of both the person attempting that blindfolded stunt and of those who goaded him on.

I have been gliding successfully for about seven years now, honestly WITHOUT incident, except for three minor "stumbles" in the first year before I actually "got the hang of it." I glide almost daily on errands around town and for pleasure.

I can attest to the reliability of the machine itself, as I experienced only one significant machine flaw which was a faulty seal which allowed rain water to damage internal parts. This was handled by the factory replacing my unit at no cost to me.

I appreciate the integrity of the machine's design as well as the clarity of Dean Kamen's vision for its invention.

From a veteran glider's point of view "out in the wild", though, I am saddened to see how Dean's vision fell short of recognizing the general population's factual generally low level of self esteem which frequently keeps individuals from:

1. Conceiving of learning or doing something new
2. Conceiving of mustering extra resources to afford something "expensive" and beyond their current resources
3. Observing and comprehending how that something works
4. Practicing and drilling the operation of that something adequately so as to be able to control it smoothly in any situation
5. Predicting and thereby avoiding the possible pitfalls of its careless or inappropriate operation
6. Taking personal responsibility for failure to do any of the above, even when it results in injury or death to self and/or others.

This unfortunate incident didn't have to happen.

Attempting to legislate or litgate people into "being good" or "being safe" is incredibly futile and only serves to complicate matters further, which are really only as "complicated" as the above listed points.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by SegwayDan

Attempting to legislate or litgate people into "being good" or "being safe" is incredibly futile and only serves to complicate matters further, which are really only as "complicated" as the above listed points.

Indeed (to the whole thing). But legislation and litigation DO have a role.

Basically, you legislate honesty -- or rather consequences for dishonesty, and rules for making things clear enough, so that if and when it comes to litigation, that becomes simpler. And honest is not just not lying, it is often a proactive duty to inform.

And you legislate and litigate to protect people from the actions of others.

While it was acknowledged early in the thread that the person was stupid to agree to try it, both of the above factors are also present:

1) He relied on statements or implication that the suggested action was safe. *I* wouldn't have believed them. But Segway doesn't get a free pass here just because they found someone gullible enough, any more than a con man should go free just because his victim was stupid.

To a great degree, the law exists to protect the stupid and weak (which is all of us at times), not the smart and powerful.

(Note that I'm not putting Segway in the same category as a con man who deliberately deceives. But the company knew better, and had even documented the helmet requirement, but failed to disclose the risks. You don't get a free pass just because you are forgetful or careless).

2) He was harmed by this failure to disclose the risks, and failure to supply him with a helmet.

Now, all this is predicated on (1) Segway not having properly informed him of the risks and (2) Segway not having supplied him with a helmet. If, in fact, Segway did inform him of the risks, and made a helmet available (and he rejected it) or informed him of their helmet safety policy (and he decided to proceed anyway), then that would put a lot of the blame on him.

I say "a lot" because he *still* would have been relying on the judgement of the company (in the form of its representatives) that this wasn't a wildly stupid idea.

But figuring these things out is the role of our jury system. The jury will have to decide whether Segway was honest, and through negligence, created the situation that lead to harm; it will have to decide if harm was done, and the monetary damage.

And finally, it will have to decide how much his own stupidity contributed to the matter.

I have a pretty high regard for juries and jurors, generally, I expect them to get the first part pretty much right. Even the monetary damages. They do, however, often have problems avoiding sympathy for the injured, and as a result they tend to assign responsibility elsewhere.

Still, they *will* try to avoid that.

There's an awful lot of hoopla around tort reform, covering both misinformation and sometimes, outright lies.

The "lawnmower as a hedge clipper" thing was made up out of whole cloth by an insurance company in 1977.

And here in California, we continue to this day to hear rants about the need for malpractice reform. Despite the fact that we've had that since 1975, and our law is generally cited as the model that people are asking for elsewhere and at the federal level. But somehow, the idea is still out there that high medical malpractice jury awards for pain and suffering is responsible for CA's high malpractice insurance rates!

And -- the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages has not been raised since it was passed -- in 1975 dollars.

So while I quite agree with you on the need for personal responsibility, I have to warn that what you hear and read about the general problem of litigation is rather misleading and highly propagandized. It's well worth digging for solid facts and forming your own opinion on the basis of those.

But certainly, you can find examples all around about silly things being done to avoid liability risks. Often, they're based more on perception than actual risk of being sued, but those fears are part of the reality, too.

But here we have the opposite situation. Actions that SHOULD have been taken, out of a very real risk of injury, were not. Not even fear of lawsuit deterred them.

But lawsuits don't fix problems, and lawsuits should never be the basis for safety.

[Bob.Kerns]

In case the phrase "highly propagandized" isn't obvious -- there are lawyers on both sides, so propaganda on both sides.

My own opinions aren't easily reduced to a sound bite. I would take a rather conservative approach to making changes. I'd like to see personal (and corporate) responsibility emphasized more, and fewer lawsuits, but the devil is in the details.

But I would completely do away with personal injury liability waivers. Disclosures, yes, waivers, no. Getting someone to sign a paper can't relieve you of your moral duty for safety, and it shouldn't be allowed to relieve you of your legal duty. But if you've done what you can and should, then you shouldn't be liable. If you didn't (as appears to be the case here), then you should, paper or no. But perhaps not solely liable.