Jump to content

Damage-claims, pure capitalism or what?


Pack Rat

Recommended Posts

This is a matter which has irritated me for ages and I wanted to know if I am the only one who thinks this way.

 

You all know and have seen the big stories. Ships sinks or train crashes. Lots of people were killed. Family's demand huge claims for their lost relatives...

 

Imo that's the lowest thing you can do...

 

Sure if you are a survivor of such an accident, no problem. That's an other mattter but if you have lost a relative and you go demanding money cause he/she got killed... It's like taking financial advantage from a persons death. Like the money is going to make the pain disappear. People die, one dies of natural causes, others die in accidents, others get killed in another war... One way of the other you will die, and if you have the chance try to die honorable.

 

It's just a matter I dont understand, imo it's disrespectfull towards the people who have passed away, I'm sure many will disagree with this, just my two cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When that whole deal was created, it was intended to give reparations to the family to make up for what the deceased person would have generated for the family. Ya know, lost wages. Like if a family didn't have much money and the father died, who happens to be the main source of the family's income, the family gets money for what money they could've made. I think that's a good thing especially in that situation. The death of the main source of income could be devastating to a family. That's why the thing was created.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the family members sue, I don't think that they are doing it necessarily for the money alone. I think that they are looking for some kind of retribution and trying to make the company pay for their ignorance that led accident. For instance, if a plane crashes due to pilot error, they would sue the airline for their igorance in first hiring the pilot, second allowing the pilot to operate the aircraft.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can sympathise with you, Pack Rat, but only to some extent. Where an accident is down to negligence it is quite right that the negligent party should pay. If the breadwinner of a family is killed or someone maimed to the point where their medical bills will be horrendous they must be compensated.

 

Where a child is killed the trauma suffered by the parents will surely mean they deserve something for their medical bills and treatment but sometimes they seem to demand blood money for their own gain. It is my view that negligent companies should pay these sums to charities, not to individuals.

 

What bothers me more is the increasing blame culture. If anything goes wrong it has to be somebody else's fault. How can a fire fighter sue because he did not realise he might have to deal with burned corpses? There must be a level at which human beings have to take some responsibility upon themselves for their choices and decisions.

 

In the UK very few of the high profile actions of this kind have succeeded. Let us hope it stays that way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Malchik. If someone takes a job they should know the risks. A medical professional is going to be around sick and diseased people, a firefighter might get burned, a police man might get shot. It's not the organizations fault that the job is high risk, but I think it takes a special kind of individual to do these jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...