Posted on 07/08/2004 8:32:22 AM PDT by ppaul
True. Liability insurance serves to make sure that third-parties injuries are paid for by the party responsible for causing them, rather than the injured party or society as a whole.
From a law and economic point of view, liability insurance is the most efficient way to handle injuries to third parties.
You would put your 11 year old on top of a roof to dodge traffic lights and electrical wires?
OK. Doty's been nailed for fraudulently misreporting hours worked on his workman's comp, and he's trying to make it sound like the authorities are pickin' on him because of how he raises his kids--which, BTW, wins no kudos from me, because he's acting like a damn fool. There are some jobs that children should not be doing--such as operating heavy equipment.
Parents can and should be held to account for risking their kids' lives and limbs in a fashion that no reasonbly prudent man would do. (My father was on a US Navy Board of Inquiry that infamously defined "a reasonably prudent man" as "a man who checks for toilet paper before sitting down.") I don't think it should be spelled out in painstaking detail; I'd just leave it to the common sense of a jury to decide.
And in our country, i.e. Innocent until proven guilty, that means you are innocent, i.e. finding one 'not guilty' in the USA is continuing their 'assumed' innocence. No splitting of hairs, just the results are the same. But you make a good point as we all remember OJ!! ;-)
I live across from a homeschooling family of 8. The 8-year-old boy is on the roof helping Dad, the little ones down below. Older kids on roof, too. Nothing bad has ever happened to them, but they do seem to take huge risks.
appreciate the heads up and you were wise!! ;-)
I don' know how long this lady is going to last, practicing such honest journalism. I just hope she has compromising pictures, showing her editor to be a closet heterosexual.
lol it's amazing to see otherwise "conservative" thinking people take the side of guvmint when it doesn't fit into their little description of what should and should not be allowed.
The best description of Rights as I see it, is if I cannot legally tell you not to do something, then neither can the state.
I can legally keep you from murdering someone. When it comes to teaching your child work ethics or morals or your beliefs, that is none of my business.
Neither is it the business of the Bolshevik statists.
" Allowing kids to work on construction sites clearly falls under this definition."
Go stick it!
No one could have stopped me from working construction when I was 14. It was illegal, I knew it and did it anyway, it was my choice.
I'm 66 and still working construction and hopefully will be able to continue to do it until i'm at least 80, haven't killed myself yet.
Fair enough.
Yes, and I can legally keep you from having your small children operate heavy machinery on or around my property, because it imposes an unreasonable risk of damage or injury to me.
I'm not sure that works. The state can stop me from comitting harm to other people, whereas you might not be able to. For example, the state can arrest me for stealing a candy bar from a store, but you probably could not (unless you were a store owner).
I can legally keep you from murdering someone. When it comes to teaching your child work ethics or morals or your beliefs, that is none of my business.
Nobody is trying to stop him from teaching his kids ethics or morals. He's committed insurance fraud and put his kids in dangerous situations.
OK. In that case, I will sign on to your idea--if you, in turn, accept that the parents get the death penalty if their child (or anyone else) is killed incidental to the child doing work that reasonably prudent individuals would judge too dangerous for someone of that age to perform.
Sticking a 13-year-old on a backhoe is, IMNHO, just inviting the Grim Reaper to show up.
Insurance fraud and child endangerment are what made America great, dagnabit! (end loopy libertarian argument)
We don't let kids consent to certain activities, no matter how ready they are. Would it be okay if the family business was a strip club and dad wanted his teenage daughters to acquire a work ethic by giving lap dances?
To quote P.J. O'Rourke: "Liberals are afraid of gun-toting religious fanatics in the US. Hell, the US was FOUNDED by gun-toting religious fanatics."
You're full of it!
A good friend of mine was operating a cat and crane at 12 and could do the job just as well if not better than the union hacks that his dad was employing. He could dig a hole and sink a gas station fuel tank faster and with more precision than any of the rest of them with a crane and clamshell.
" We don't let kids consent to certain activities, no matter how ready they are."
You better define who "we" is!
Yes, and I can legally keep you from having your small children operate heavy machinery on or around my property, because it imposes an unreasonable risk of damage or injury to me
But you try to tell me the same thing on my property or at my business and I'll tell you to go shove it.
My point is made. My rights end where yours begin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.