If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Header Ad Module
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is this fair? Building company to pay 200K for broken footpath resulting in death!
I have no personal connection at all. I'm just going on my observations and thoughts regarding circumstances in what will be thousands of situations like this across NZ right now.
Personal responsibility exists to some degree to the victim, yes he made a wrong judgment and because of his failing health the consequences of that judgment played a large part in his death.
He did not crash off his mobility scooter because of his supposed 'failing ill health'. He fell off his mobility scooter because some idiot/s neglected to perform their Health & Safety duties and he crashed, eventuating in his death. Unless you are a coroner or a family member you won't know the actual cause of death, he might have lived another 5 years except for the accident.
What is fact is that the company were negligent in not setting up a barrier to stop him riding in an area where it wasn't safe for him, or anyone to be.
You're mixing up fact with fiction. The fact is he did have failing health ,and he made an error in his decision of navigation. If he'd been an able bodied individual this death would not have happened.
The company were not negligent about the barrier ,they were negligent due to simple human error of a deviation in the concrete path surface.
You're mixing up fact with fiction. The fact is he did have failing health ,and he made an error in his decision of navigation. If he'd been an able bodied individual this death would not have happened.
The company were not negligent about the barrier ,they were negligent due to simple human error of a deviation in the concrete path surface.
Yes I'm talking fact and you're talking fiction. It is clear to me anyway that you have an interest in the company that was fined, there is no other reasoning behind your comments as they are illogical. Simple human error still equates to lack of responsibility. Maybe if they weren't immigrants they might have a better understanding of the legislation??
No, categorically no i don't have any personal investiture or relation with the company .
To what finite degree of human error does their rise such serious culpability?
Balanced against personal responsibility on two sides of the equation.
By your logic you condone outlandish settlements like for example a $6million US dollar payout that McD's had to pay for serving a coffee to an elderly lady at a drive through whereby that customer spilt said coffee into her lap and suffered burns.
Regarding McD's, theres a very good video explaining it all including how they had been prewarned about the temp. The lady/victim only wanted her medical expenses covered but the jury awarded the $6 mil figure.
And on a side note, can anyone cone off a footpath? I know roads can only have cones placed on them by authorized people, even just in the gutter. Not sure about footpaths though. So could it be a case of breaking one law to meet another?
Comment