[robertpaulsen]

"If you're running that ride and you don't warn me that it can cause seizures, you're going to be on the hook for damages that I might suffer if I have a seizure."

And how would that sign help you if you read it? Do you know that you're susceptible to seizures?

I mean, if you don't know, then the sign does you no good at all, does it?

If you DO know that you're susceptible to seizures, wouldn't common sense tell you not to get on that ride? Shouldn't you be aware of what might cause a seizure? Isn't it in YOUR best interest to find out what might cause a seizure?

That's called personal responsibility. No sign necessary.

[Publius Valerius]

And how would that sign help you if you read it? Do you know that you're susceptible to seizures?

It gives a person fully and complete information about the risks associated with the stunt. And, frankly, society simply places the burden of disclosure on the purveyor of the stunt because that equals the least cost on society.

From a policy standpoint, is it really good policy to place the burden of discovering risks on the customer? Let's say your doctor prescribes you a drug. Is it REALLY good policy to require the patient to research the drug, its potential side effects, the long-term risks of taking the drug, potential dangerous interactions with other drugs, etc? Or is it better policy to require the drug company to conduct that research and disclose it to the customer? Which has the lowest cost to society? Surely you would agree that the lowest societal cost is requiring the drug company to disclose the risks, but how does that square with your notion of "personal responsibility?"