I don't believe I did, but I probably didn't explain what I meant well.

There is always going to be a class of people that are afraid to ask for help, and need it, let's call that group "T" for timid. There is also always going to be a group of people that are clueless or arrogant and will call for help when they don't need it. Let's call that group "C" for clueless.

You can't change the way these people behave any more than you can teach sheep to read. When you try to change things to fix it, holding people accountable financially for example, you make the T people more timid, but don't make the C people less clueless. In short, you've made the problem worse.

Or in other words - legal systems put in place to make things better in an attempt at changing people's behavior often work backwards of the original intent.

It goes along with the saying "You can't teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and it annoys the pig." I'd add that it's also very frustrating for the people trying to give out the singing lessons...and I believe what people are talking about is singing lessons.

I think the major and the obvious difference between a cell phone company allowing it's users access to the 911 system and the SPOT system is that SPOT is selling a service where their people contact the authorities on the behalf of those using the SPOT device.

If a cellular phone company offered to call EMS for me using their operators and I tell them I'm in the midst of an emergency and to please send help and they do so, they are acting as my agent. If they do so without ascertaining what the emergency is, then they share the liability. In the cases where people are using SPOT for what I think most people would call frivolous reasons, it was the good people at SPOT who actually called for help. If they're going to use publicly funded EMS and 911 services to provide help for their customers, then they should be held liable for the misuse of their own system.

Hmm, the idea of a switchboard operation and someone on the other end of the SPOT system making a judgement call about the nature of the emergency might change the mix a bit. If it were just a pass through service like a cell phone connection, then I would expect the same rules to be in play, whether charged for or not (in the case of the cell providers, their fee for 911 service is absorbed as overhead, meaning the cost for the service is indirectly billed to the network as a whole, which I don't think alleviates their connections. A ham operator that provides a free interconnect on a community repeater can still be held accountable for other people's use of that system, especially if it violates any laws or regulations).

I guess we'll just have to see how that situation evolves. If SPOTs postion really is that tenuous, I suspect someone will eventually file suit against them in some way. If that happens and SPOT loses the case, I'll do my level best to make sure anyone I find using the service from then on has a legitimate cause for pushing the button, like a broken leg, or arm, or nose. LOL

If a minimum-wage operator fielded a distress call and made the wrong decision, I can see that turning into a lawsuit.

"I'll do my level best to make sure anyone I find using the service from then on has a legitimate cause for pushing the button, like a broken leg, or arm, or nose."

If all they've got is a broken nose, they can breathe through their mouth and walk out. Don't waste the taxpayers money for that!

Sue

There are so many things askew here, I don't know where to begin. First off, subsequent remedial measures are not admissible in a tort action to prove the alleged negligent act. If someone sues a grocery store saying the floor was slick and the grocery store puts down a rubber mat where someone slipped, that is not admissible in evidence to prove the floor was slick.

Secondly, providing for contingencies in a contract with a subscriber or anyone else for that matter is simply attributing the risk of loss and an attempt to potentially liquidate damages. Anticipating the potential breach or negligence of a contracting party does not make such acts foreseeable by the party who shifts the risk of loss.

The case citation you quoted appears to stand for a long- established legal principal that the manufacturer of a product is not responsible for its misuse unless such misuse is reasonably foreseeable. That would rarely be the case applying was is commonly called the objective reasonable person standard. And a manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the intentional or criminal misuse of their product by others. All the class action lawyers have tried that against the gun manufacturers and failed.

I am saddened that our society has apparently abandoned the concept of personal responsibility in favor of the scapegoat tactic of "going after the money". It has hurt the US on the global market and will continue to the plague of small and large businesses alike until there are consequences to filing a frivolous lawsuit.

You have elected to take this conversation to a place I will not go. I refuse to engage in discussion which would tend in any way to tarnish the memory of the brave heroes of 9/11. I am done, sir.

So Cellar, your answer is that nobody should be held responsible for their actions. Private citizen or public company.
Edit: I had deleted my post before reading your response.
I didn't besmirch anybody's memory by what I said and am reposting it.
If you want to hide by wrapping yourself up in the hyperpatriotism that is fine, but don't accuse me of slandering dead people.
I only pointed out the fallacy of your argument about personal responsibility and blaming the victims.
You really should read that request for discovery though. It is quite interesting. The Port Authority who were responsible for keeping the buildings safe are trying to shift the blame to the Government and to the Airlines who owned the jets.
____
Previous post which I had deleted:
So you think businesses should not be sued for damages caused by their actions under any circumstances Celler?

If you think the article I quoted there was weird try reading this one.
http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/pdf/PANYNJWTC7_Memo_Support_Focused_Discovery_Govt.pdf

If you do read it keep in mind that the Port Authority was named in the suite and is doing their best to place the blame on somebody else.
This is one of the reasons lawyers say sue everybody in sight and let them fight over it. Quite often the defendants will convict each other as they try to avoid their own responsibility.

Of course, by your guy's reasoning, the only people responsible for people getting killed in the WTC Towers were the victims foolish enough to work there. They all knew the place was a target and it was not the first time it was attacked either.
By your argument they should be expected to cowboy up and accept their responsibility for their own deaths which they invited by going there.
However even the most dedicated libertarian would find that position far too politically incorrect to defend.


Now about the wet floor analogy. It is not the same thing because the person didn't misuse the floor by walking on it and cost somebody else money. The result is nobody is suing for the damages the person falling cost them. Maybe the fire department should consider it though, now that you pointed it out.
However. If the store had a floor that got slippery when wet and did nothing about it they are indeed liable for a person's injuries if they slip and fall.
Even putting a slippery when wet sign out ahead of time might not protect them from a legal action if it can be shown they should have expected the sign to be ignored.

About whether the legal system is sane or not I will not comment. It is the American system and that is how your country works.
I would only add that in a lot of countries corporations face much stiffer laws regarding responsibility for their actions than they do in the USA.

I would like to be able to save the old lady and, while we are at it, nominate ten people for the Darwin Awards.

Jeanette Isabelle