A Truly Heartless Bastard
by Lee
As you may remember I was recently the foreman on a jury in a civil personal injury case. We ended up giving the plaintiff a small amount to cover his medical bills, but as for pain and suffering he got exactly $0. So it was with interest that I read this post at Sullivan’s site this morning.
Dan Drezner took this moral test from Harvard. So did I. We both scored very low. The test appears to measure how much people should be forced to pay for accidental or negligent injury of others. I guess our responses simple reflect the fact that we both believe in personal responsibility.
Anyone want to guess what my final score was? Here’s a hint: use my jury experience as a reference. I sat in a courtroom, looked a kid in the eye, and told him he didn’t deserve a single penny for his pain and suffering. When you read these hypotheticals, keep that in mind.
Interesting, though, when you consider my score in light of my views of socialized medicine and the role of the state.
Comments
Hey, I ended up giving away $0.00 - I found no instance of malicious intent, and most times the injured weren’t looking out for themselves, no were they listed as injured in any meaningfull way.
I only gave away money from the dentist, who needed to take responsibility for hurting a patient. In many of the other cases, the person who was blamed in the story wasn’t actually the person responsible. I didn’t feel very morally tested, actually.
I gave $13000. The guy rolling the barrel down the ramp was negligent and I fined him the heaviest. I fined the dentist a few bucks as well, but otherwise thought that there was no reason to fine the others for their conduct.
But what about not standing in front of a ramp that barrels are rolling down? Aren’t you responsible for monitoring your own environment for hazards? When I’m at a work site I watch for such things - it is not reasonable to expect everyone to look out for you when you do stupid things.
The dentist had no reason to believe that pain would be involved as he apparently took all normal precautions. Pain at the dentists office is a fact of life, not a reason to get cash.
I agree with SO, and likewise had the subjects fork over a total of a whopping US $0.00. In all cases, there was no malicious intent.
If we come to the point where being human and f*cking up on occasion costs us money, we’re sunk. Especially when the amount is determined by whim. Punishment should be given to people who intend to do harm and succeed, not to normal working stiffs just trying to earn a buck.
I couldn’t bring myself to fine any of them. I was a bit surprised at the participant’s average. People must think inconveniences are like hitting the lottery.
Lee,
I wish you were foreman of all of my juries.
I only applied a fine where I thought there was negligence. Negligence doesn’t require a malicious intent but it does require a deviation from standards that a normal person would employ. Thus, for example, where a worked is rolling barrels down a ramp, a normal person would check to see if it was safe to roll the barrels before letting them go. As I read the question, it sounded like the worker didn’t perform a safety check and the person walking by had no warning that barrels would be coming down. Thus, due to the injury sustained, I thought that the worker should be fined $10,000, which was my estimatation of the $ value of pain and suffering for having a leg broken by a barrel.
With the dentist, again, I thought he acted in a way that was below the professional standards for a dentist. A dentist should know when he’s going to hit a nerve with a high speed drill. For that one, though, I gave $500, as I thought that for the most part, people expect pain at a dentist, so the negligence on the dentist’s part was fairly minimal.
The questions were kinda vague. I averaged $813 mainly for the rolling barrels because I figured I might be off work for a while.
If the guy at the work site is rolling barrels in a way they can go out of control, I’m guessing he’s not following safety procedures. I’m sure many work sites do take chances with safely such as rolling the barrels down a ramp, but are still not following proper safety procedures.
The burnt hand was the other one I awarded for because the person using the torch should be more careful and a burnt hand would keep me off work. It’s not like I’m the type of person who would put his hand in a torch to get money, and generally I’d be very careful around welding tools. In that case, I assume it’s the other person’s irresponsibility.
Even still, I only considered loss of work since I live in a utopia of socialized health care.
I mean really, if you can’t laugh about some of the silly things there like an accidental broken nose, what kind of a whiny pussy are you. It’s not life threatening and if the person shows genuine remorse, I’d assume they didn’t mean it. I wouldn’t worry about money over a little pain. Besides when you go to the hospital, they give you some pretty nice drugs to manage the pain.
Yeah, I gave a grand total of ZERO. I didn’t see any overt negligence in any of the cases.
In the jury case I was in we found, as a matter of law, that the driver of the car was liable, and gave the kid a few grand for his medical expenses thus far. And we gave him a few more grand for some injections that he would need for the next few years. But when it came to pain and suffering, we had no sympathy for him. Despite the legal liability of the driver, the kid walked out in front of a fucking car. It was just so stupid, there was no way we could find that the driver did anything morally wrong. So we did the legal thing, and on the moral issue told him to stick it up his whining ass.
I also gave $0. The dentist was the only one that made me think, there is some level of competance demanded of a health care worker where ignorance is no excuse; however I am certainly not able to judge if this threshold was breached based on the criteria given.
Some of the other examples suggested the people who owned or managed the premises (especially in the builder case) may perhaps be liable, but certainly not the characters described.
I gave zero.
A couple could have been negligent but it sort of springs from either intent or habitual actions, the test clearly said there was no ill intent, and gave no information on the habits of the dentist, say, or the barrel roller.
Had they done this in the past i might have decided differently. But a one off should not deserve a fine.
I required one two fine of $250. The scenario was of a woman who put her feet up on the seat across from her tripping someone causing them to sprain their ankle. I hate it when people put their feet up on another seat in a public place. It’s not your house damnit… everyone else 0. There were a few cases were I would have liked to fine the employer of an individual in a scenario, but that option wasn’t given. These cases were all pretty arbitrary.
I can’t believe the average award though… perhaps it’s been greatly swayed by a few outliers.
"The questions were kinda vague. I averaged $813 mainly for the rolling barrels because I figured I might be off work for a while.”
The rules of the test stated that the money would go to the government. The fines were meant purely as punishment for the offender individual, not compensation to the injured.
The barrel situation was one where I’d want to fine the employer. It sounded like rolling barrels down ramps were standard practice… if that particular employee thought it up, I’d be more inclined to fine him.
Negligence doesn’t require a malicious intent but it does require a deviation from standards that a normal person would employ.
And who defines “normal person”? And how do we know that there was a “deviation from standards” in any of the cases?
No, unless negligence is either specified or proven, it doesn’t apply. We cannot merely assume negligence—it has to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, why not pin negligence on the guy walking in front of the barrel?
I gave a fine for the welding torch, because people that stupid should be punished. If you don’t know that metal conducts heat, you shouldn’t be using a naked flame (there was a bit in the question that said the girl didn’t know that the rest of the sculpture would get hot).
The cases were so contrived though. What art student gets ahold of a welding torch without reasonable equipment and the like. If you’re welding an art sculpture, obviously you have to manipulate it somehow.
One thing that crossed me was that lot of people misunderstood the question. the quiz said that these were “fines” which would got government. So i gave $0 in all cases but the barrels. With some others, I’d be fine with some civil penaltiies paid to the hurt victim. But I could not, except with the barrels, see a point in the government getting money out of this.
...people that stupid should be punished…
Must be comforting to know that, come hell or high water, you will never ever in a million years be caught being “that stupid”, whatever “that stupid” might mean at the given moment. No, you are obviously too smart to ever make a thoughtless mistake…
Besides, isn’t stupidity its own punishment?
If you don’t know that metal conducts heat, you shouldn’t be using a naked flame.
And the person who burned his hand is just as stupid for putting his hand on a piece of metal that’s being welded.
I wasn’t given the option to fine the idiot who burnt his hand :)
I think the problem is that the test was set up so that the gov’t got the money.
I saw only two scenarios where I would’ve fined the person.
1) The dentist. But in that case, I found it to be a case of neligience and I would’ve had the dentist give the customer a free appointment. But I don’t think the fine should’ve went to the government.
2) The barrel roller. In that case, I would’ve found the employer liable for the victim’s damage, not the worker himself. It’s the employer who was irresponsible in setting up the situation. I would’ve fined the employer, with part of it going to the city and most of it going to the victim. But I would’ve not fined the worker himself.
So I ended up fining a grand total of $0.00.
Not a damned dime. Also, I find these comments amazing.
Bruce thinks that he will just drill out the cavity, without causing any pain at all.
He’s a dentist (not a dental student), gone thru school, etc. Not his first tooth drilled. Not all humans are wired exactly the same. This isn’t even an error, it just happened. Our healthcare costs are thru the roof because doctors/dentists get dinged for crap like this all the time.
Tom does not think that the man is about to walk in front of the ramp where a barrel would hit him. Tom thinks the man will remain standing where he is, out of the way.
The man is standing there. Obviously, Tom looked, taking a reasonably cautious approach.
I don’t see how anyone could award money in any of these scenarios. I’m just stunned… $72K?!?!
The only one I considered fining was the barrel roller. You think he’d at least give a shout if there was anyone in the area below.
Zero, zip, NADA. I gave nothing away. Everything I saw described in there was either an accident (dentist) or people not looking or thinking. Their reward is still being alive
I liked the welding burn question - anyone so stupid as to be holding onto a piece of metal being welded deserves whatever happens to them
Basically, all the questions were contrived and ignored such things as common safety procedures at a work site.
They’re supposed to be contrived. They test your apportionment of blame, not your knowledge of OSH procedures.
The rules of the test stated that the money would go to the government. The fines were meant purely as punishment for the offender individual, not compensation to the injured.
What’s the fucking government doing with its head under the tent?! Sorry, no money for the government, no matter the circumstance. The whole idea is offensive.
1) The dentist. But in that case, I found it to be a case of neligience and I would’ve had the dentist give the customer a free appointment. But I don’t think the fine should’ve went to the government.
2) The barrel roller. In that case, I would’ve found the employer liable for the victim’s damage, not the worker himself. It’s the employer who was irresponsible in setting up the situation. I would’ve fined the employer, with part of it going to the city and most of it going to the victim. But I would’ve not fined the worker himself.
This was *exactly* my conclusion.
I think their idea was to seperate “punishment” from “restitution”. The test was not about restitution at all but about punishment. Interestingly, in every case, if you take a $ amount you are punishing someone for at most negligence with no restitution. People who give high amounts are probably a little sadistic; which is perhaps the opposite of what they think they are.
GripeBoy gave ‘em all a hot steaming cup of jack shit! Shit happens. That’s life.
Besides, most of those scenarios would likely result in the punishment of losing one’s job. That’s enough of a punishment to prevent employee negligence.
For the legs on the seat scenario, the victim should be allowed to beat the shit out of that stupid bitch.
1) The dentist. But in that case, I found it to be a case of neligience and I would’ve had the dentist give the customer a free appointment. But I don’t think the fine should’ve went to the government.
So as a patient, you would feel comfortable about going back to an incompetent dentist? The dentist deserves some kind of punishment because he was the only one who was not acting in accordance with the professional training he must have received to become a dentist. He is fully responsible for his situation.
It might be too much of a punishment. In some cases, having your wages docked might be more appropriate than getting fired entirely. Mistakes happen, after all, and provided you’re not a blithering incompetent who doesn’t understand that metal gets hot when you point a blowtorch at it, being fired isn’t necessarily the best outcome for anyone.
I fined the peanut woman $500, because she should have known better than to eat peanuts in an allergy clinic.
I considered fining the welder, because she should have known better than to weld something in somebody’s hand. Then I thought you had to be even dafter to hold metal being welded, so I let her off.
Everyone else got away with it.
So as a patient, you would feel comfortable about going back to an incompetent dentist?
I don’t see how the dentist is incompetent. Every time I’ve ever had dental work done they numbed my whole jawline with lidocaine. One injection into the nerve at the back of my jaw and I couldn’t feel that side of my face for 8 hours. Even half of your tongue goes dead. If your cavity goes to the root than they either extract the tooth or send you for a root canal.
None of the situations in any of the scenarios would ever happen in real life. Except for that ditzy twat throwing her legs up at the train station.
I fined the peanut woman $500, because she should have known better than to eat peanuts in an allergy clinic.
Peanut allergies are so rare though. Especially the kind that someone beside you with peanuts causes harm. I had allergy shots as a middle schooler because I was in the hospital every fall and spring due to pollen allergies. I almost died once because I ended up being allergic to horses and went horseback riding. I eventually got better through the shots and just getting older. I grew out of my asthma as well. There was no prohibition on peanuts in the waiting room.
Oddly enough two years ago I developed an allergy to bananas and ended up in the emergency room. Bananas for Christ’s sake! Who woulda thunk it.
Great thing about allergies - not only do they get worse as you age, you accumulate more of them.
I went in to see a specialist about 5 years ago when I developed a rash that would just not go the fuck away. Turned out I had developed a dust mite allergy and I started washing all my bedding in hot water to kill the little fuckers off.
While I was there they gave me the full set of tests on both arms - must have been nearly 80 different allergens. I had the worst reaction to grass pollens that they had ever seen, and this at the office of a specialist who had been practicing for decades in a major city. Instead of getting a bump the size of a “mosquito bite” after 15 minutes, it looked as if someone had slid three stacked silver dollars under my skin.
Guess who doesn’t mow his own lawn?
While I was there they gave me the full set of tests on both arms - must have been nearly 80 different allergens.
Only your arms? They did mine up and down my back as well. My horse one did just like your grass one did. However, I’ve grown out of most of my allergies. They said that might happen. I get stuffy nose and shit but I don’t end up in the hospital like I used to.
Yours seem to be adult onset though. Mine were childhood.
I hit the dentist and the barrel roller. Dentist for half a grand and the barrel roller for 5 grand. The others where just silly.
Turned out I had developed a dust mite allergy and I started washing all my bedding in hot water to kill the little fuckers off.
And worse, it’s really their shit you’re allergic too. I have the same allergy and a host of others. Had them since childhood. I’ve had shots therapy and the whole bit.
My brother is allergic to certain kinds of fish and along with other symptoms, his nuts swell to mammoth proportions.
So as a patient, you would feel comfortable about going back to an incompetent dentist? The dentist deserves some kind of punishment because he was the only one who was not acting in accordance with the professional training he must have received to become a dentist. He is fully responsible for his situation.
i’d never go back to an incompentent dentist. just like i’d never go back to an incompotent mechanic.
i don’t know about your dentist, but everytime i’ve had any major dental work done (and i’ve had my share), my dentist always, always, always informed me about potential contact with my nerves and the damage that may happen from that. and made me sign a form that i understood the risk and absolved him from any damages should he destroy a nerve.
he also hits me up with so much lidocaine, my face is all ‘melty’. i actually fell asleep during my last root canal.
Peanut allergies are so rare though. Especially the kind that someone beside you with peanuts causes harm.
i used to work with a guy with a peanut allergy so strong that if anyone had even opened a snickers in the room an hour before he came in, he would break out in hives and his breathing would become labored.
and a very good friend of mine is so allergic to peanuts that he can’t eat m&ms;because they are made in a plant that also makes candy bars with peanuts.
My brother is allergic to certain kinds of fish and along with other symptoms
my sister is actually allergic to cold. well, not exactly allergic, but if the ambient temperature drops below about 50, she breaks out in hives and a rash forms all over her body. of course, she’s also allergic to almost all fish, most legumes, some forms of protein, grass clippings, and has an extremely rare form of herpes that lives in her eyeballs.
and you think your life sucks?
Of course I came up with an average of $0. But I thought it would be good keep em guessing so I registered as a college educated black female teacher, as opposed to the white high school male drop-out that plays poker for a living that I am.
ummm ‘male high school drop-out’ that is....yes I see the irony.
My daughter gets hives when cold.
I averaged $156, and only fined the dentist, peanut girl, and barrel boy, because they knew that there was a clear danger to what they were doing, and did it anyways.
And worse, it’s really their shit you’re allergic too.
How is that worse? Shit has different meanings at the scale - don’t forget that ethanol is yeast shit.
Next entry: Modern Day Cowboy
Previous entry: Chewy Justice
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8229
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 42
Total anonymous users: 0
Manwhore,
Mark_M,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
Hey, I ended up giving away $0.00 - I found no instance of malicious intent, and most times the injured weren’t looking out for themselves, no were they listed as injured in any meaningfull way.
Based on what the average outcome was, I’d say that the country is way too comfortable with paying people off for the minor inconveniences of life.