Ripped Off
Here is another instance where lawsuits have ruined things for the rest of us. As my regular readers are aware, my family recently spent a week in the Florida panhandle. Five of the days we were there, red flags were flying, which indicates dangerous conditions in the water: nobody should enter the water. The reason for the flags that week was dangerous riptides, which are not visible to the untrained eye. Without those flags, we would have entered the water unaware of the life-threatening danger.
But some people consider themselves beyond the grasp of nature's grip and wander into the water despite warnings. A resident couple in Florida went into the water despite a red flag warning and found themselves in trouble. A vacationer hurried in to rescue them and lost his own life. But the vacationer's family sued the state of Florida under the theory that the flags provided inadequate warning. I can't imagine a stronger warning than, "Stay Out of the Water," but they sued nonetheless.
Proponents of the plaintiff's bar often argue that plaintiff's lawyers make the country safer through lawsuits. At one point, I believe that was true. At this point, it is not. Florida is now stuck. It has removed the flags to avoid costly lawsuits. It will now lose vacationers to drownings and, I am guessing, its tourism industry will suffer. Thanks be to the plaintiff's bar.
Here is another instance where lawsuits have ruined things for the rest of us. As my regular readers are aware, my family recently spent a week in the Florida panhandle. Five of the days we were there, red flags were flying, which indicates dangerous conditions in the water: nobody should enter the water. The reason for the flags that week was dangerous riptides, which are not visible to the untrained eye. Without those flags, we would have entered the water unaware of the life-threatening danger.
But some people consider themselves beyond the grasp of nature's grip and wander into the water despite warnings. A resident couple in Florida went into the water despite a red flag warning and found themselves in trouble. A vacationer hurried in to rescue them and lost his own life. But the vacationer's family sued the state of Florida under the theory that the flags provided inadequate warning. I can't imagine a stronger warning than, "Stay Out of the Water," but they sued nonetheless.
Proponents of the plaintiff's bar often argue that plaintiff's lawyers make the country safer through lawsuits. At one point, I believe that was true. At this point, it is not. Florida is now stuck. It has removed the flags to avoid costly lawsuits. It will now lose vacationers to drownings and, I am guessing, its tourism industry will suffer. Thanks be to the plaintiff's bar.
posted by Jan at 10:17 PM
2 Comments:
I don't get this. Why would removing the flags help them legally? I suppose signs that say "we're not responsible" and no flags means they're REALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE?? Is that the point? The flags indicate that they have a hand in protecting the swimmers?
Ack. Couldn't they put up a sign that says, "We're not responsible, but here is the flag chart if you'd like to look at it while you take responsibility for yourself."
Angi L.
The reason it helps them legally is this: if you undertake to provide security or safety of any kind, you are then under a duty to do it (under the assumption that people are now relying on you for their safety). So, if you put flags out, you are under a duty to put the right flag out. So, if you have a yellow flag out and conditions turn red, you can be sued for failing to warn. In the case I mentioned in my post, the flags were red, so I'm not sure what the plaintiff's theory could have been, unless it was failure to educate. Florida has decided that it is not practical to keep the flags current on its miles and miles of public beaches, so it has decided to avoid lawsuits by removing them entirely. By doing so, they no longer have a duty to the public.
Hope that helps.
Post a Comment
<< Home