This case involved a
close friend. (circa 1997)
The incident involved a car crash
where my friend (whom we'll call SAM) was in his stationary car at a set of traffic
lights. The lights were red in his direction, and as we've all been taught, you stop
there until you get the green light. Another driver (whom we'll call BILL) came down
the hill and crashed into the rear of Sam's car. There was much damage to Sam's
vehicle, and he suffered severe whiplash.
To most of us this seems like a simple
case..... Sam was abiding by the law. He had stopped at a red light. Bill was
obviously not concentrating on the road, nor the conditions ahead, and ran his car into
the back of Sam's vehicle. We all probably would consider that Sam was in no
way at fault, and in fact, most of us believe that if we are "hit up the rear"
in a car accident, then we are "totally in the right"....
WELL THINK AGAIN!
What happened in the case of "SAM
Vs BILL" was an absolute eye opener to the stupidity of the law.
Bill's lawyer called Sam to the stand
and the conversation went as follows:
Lawyer: Sam, did my client's
vehicle impact into the rear of your vehicle?
Sam: Yes.
Lawyer: Would it be fair to say
that it was partly your fault that this accident occured?
Sam:
No way! I was sittin' at the lights....
Lawyer: But! If your
vehicle wasn't there, would there have been an accident?
Sam:
Of course not. But..
Lawyer: So you are saying,
that if your vehicle was NOT there, that the accident would not have occurred?
Sam:
That is common sense, but I was there and the
defendent ran into the rear of my car...............
Lawyer: But you have just
agreed that if you weren't there that the accident would not have occurred, so
therefore that means that by being there at the lights, you partly caused the accident.
Sam:
You are full of shit! This is absolute crap!
Lawyer: But you, yourself
have stated that the accident would not have occured if you had not been stopped at the
traffic lights. So therefore, the fact that you were there has been a part of the cause of
the accident!
Sam:
F---k you, you are twisting things around....
*******************
The result?
Sam, who was sitting in his car at the
traffic lights, abiding by the road rules, was apportioned 25% of the blame.
Bill was apportioned 75% of the blame.
In Dollar terms, this meant that Sam had
to pay thousands of dollars out of his own pocket for the injuries to his neck, and
the loss of his business through the inability to work.
THIS WAS THE GUY ABIDING BY THE LAW !
Bill, who was not concentrating on his
driving, and skidded into the rear of Sam's car also had to pay thousands of dollars, but
did not even get a "written conviction"
WHAT THIS MEANS
No matter what we do, or where we are,
there is the possibility that some smartarsed lawyer will twist the circumstances around,
and YOU will be blamed for something.
This is the "new order" of
litigation, that we used to laugh about and say " It could only happen in
America" Well it is happening here in good old OZ.
Given the recent events in New York, the
Insurance companies have seen fit to maximise their profits by increasing their public
liability premiums by up to 300%.
Does this protect the public? NO
WAY! Most Insurance companies would like to see us sued, so they can cancel
our policies (after making some obscure deal with the plaintiff) Note
that there is always some sort of "non disclosure" clause in the payouts in most
of these sorts of cases these days....
It is time that the individual begins to
take RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions!
It is time that we stopped subsidising
the lavish lifestyles of the lawyers. It is time that the anomolies in the current so
called "Legal System" are fixed. It is time that the innocent parties are once
again treated as exactly that: innocent!
It is time that the conniving, twisting,
backstabbing, moneygrubbing members of the so called "legal fraternity" took
stock of their own attitudes, and began to look at the moral side of their profession.
After all, it is great to get your
client "off" on a murder charge, but when you know "deep down" that
he/she actually "did it", then where do you stand morally?
Perhaps this is why there are so many
criminals still on our streets, and why the crime rates are climbing.
(thanks... lawyers ! )
I see no honour in "getting someone
off" a criminal charge, when they are obviously guilty, nor "minimising"
the payout in a case such as "Sam's" by manipulating the understanding of our
language.
As in all of history, the circle turns,
and I hope that the circle turns the so called "legal fraternity" INSIDE
OUT in the near future. Their greed, and egos, have allowed many criminals to continue to
walk our streets, as well as ensuring great hardship to many innocent parties.
Where is truth? It is
within YOU !
Back |
