Originally posted by: Warthog912
Originally posted by: themroc27
Originally posted by: Warthog912
Originally posted by: Mwilding
How does personal responsibility relate to trespassing (beyond taking responsibility for crossing a marked no trespassing fence) ?
Say you walked into the Produce section of your local Grocery Store, You see that in the Grape Section, the grapes are missing. So, you think nothing of it keep walking, slip and fall on a grape which happens to be on the floor smashed. Who's Responsible? The Grocery store for ANOTHER (key here) customer knocking off the grapes on to the floor which you happened to slip and fall on, or are You responsible for not looking where you walk.
This is pretty cut and dry in my book, You are personally responsible for your own actions. And yes, this does fall under the trespassing law for the fact that they are allowing you onto their property, don't ask my why. That is just one of the mere ludacris examples which he has given this morning...
The community expects business owners to provide a shopping facility that is safe. That includes having employees monitor safety conditions in the store, and take some measures to fix potential dangers like spilt liquids, etc.
say you were to walk into a store, stand in a pool of liquid on the floor, and be electrocuted (to point of death)? You are personally responsbile for standing in that pool of liquid carrying the high-voltage electric current - but really, big fvcking deal. We (the community, society) expect businesses to make their premises safe, and if they don't then they should be held legally liable.
WTF are you gonna be standing in a puddle of liquid in the first place.
Um, because I didn't SEE that pool of liquid on the floor of the supermarket?
Originally posted by: Warthog912
IN A STORE MIND YOU,
Exactly, IN A STORE, precisely the kind of place where you DON'T expect to step in a pool of liquid, let alone a pool of liquid with a current running through it.
Originally posted by: Warthog912
don't be a dumbass and see how wet you can get your socks. For that lost productivity, you deserve to fried.
What's with the abusive language?
My POINT is that the business (supermarket, grocery, whatever) has an obligation to provide a reasonable level of safety. What we are talking about here is essentially a community expectation (that businesses do not harm their customers) coded into law. I see this as entirely reasonable. In fact, I DO want to live in a society where businesses are PUNISHED, FINED, or SHUT DOWN when they behave in a manner that causes significant harm to individual citizens.
Originally posted by: Warthog912
My Point is that not 100% of the time can the business maintain the so-called "safety" of the premises,
If the business is not able to maintain a "reasonable" level of safety (as established by community expectations and standards, written into law) then that business should not BE in business. You don't have a right to practice your business unfettered by community expectations (as expressed in law). You are granted the right to practice your business, within a community of people, PROVIDED you meet the expectations of the community, INCLUDING expectations of safety. This is just common sense.
Originally posted by: Warthog912
it should be assumed that sometimes sh!t happens,
Sometimes "sh1t happenes", and sometimes that sh1t is due to the negligence of corporations. In such instances, the harmed individuals do have the legal and moral right to seek compensation.
Originally posted by: Warthog912
as well as an assumption that one would not willingly stand in a puddle of liquid for the hell of it-
For the hell of it? You post is riddled with extreme examples, silly examples, and (deliberate?) misrepresentations of what I have said. If this is your "style" of argument, then you are going to get a very poor grade on assessment for the subject you mention in the OP (unless of course the standards at your college are very low indeed).
Facebook
Twitter