Well, that seems to have struck a raw nerve
. It’s true that the courts can make some seemingly outlandish rulings, much to the detriment of society at large. Judges are not infallible, they screw up just like everyone else. But judges are also competitive, they probably censure and review one another, over time this should lead to equilibrium. I have faith that it will.
Ira once said something about having faith that the universe would fulfill his needs. I have grown to share this sentiment. True, sometimes we get screwed or hurt, but life goes on and we rebuild or restructure to meet the demands of the new system.
Many voices here jumped all over my post, without asking questions or taking some time to look more thoroughly at the question. This reflex is exactly what causes people to jump on burning bags of dog ????. Do what you feel is right, my feet are clean.
However there are some misconceptions on this thread that I would like to set straight.
1) This is a story I heard second or third hand. I don’t even know the participants, I’m not trying to convince anyone to sue anyone else.
The idea may not sit well with some folks, but Tort law is a form of oversight in the States; furthermore it the only system of regulation that I see investigating this particular incident. Some law suits are wrong; this fact does not mean that all suits are wrong. Many of the safety devices in our world have come about because of Tort law; Chain brakes, safety bars on the chipper, safer electrical outlets, seat belts, are a few possibilities.
My thought was that a suit filed against the school would force an evaluation of safety protocols that I feel are flawed. I may be wrong on both counts, I am often wrong, which is why I spend time asking questions and simulating possibilities. It’s a lot easier to change your mind before you make the back cut.
2) “Morale” is a misspelling, I meant moral. I’m not really laughing, but it is kind of a funny mistake, sue me.
So if you want to attack my argument you can go after;
Premise #1) Safety training at the school is inadequate.
Premise #2) A law suit is the best way to force evaluation and subsequent restructure of the school’s safety policy.
Or, you can try and prove that premise 1 and 2 do not lead to my conclusion;
Conclusion) The student is morally obligated to sue the school, otherwise more students may be hurt because of a flawed training program.
A few stabs at Premise #1 are interesting, foremost is the idea that “personal responsibility” can get us a long way. I completely disagree with this statement. I spent 6 years in the US Navy, and the rest of my life in the trees, my personal experience is that people take responsibility for their actions up to the point where they are morally justified. Beyond that point they start to make excuses.
A prime example is my buddy “Logger man”, he makes all of his guys wear hardhats, eye pro, saw pants, gloves, no loose clothing around the chipper (incidentally he does this partly because he is afraid of getting sued) but get this, none of his saws have chain brakes! LOL! I asked him about this once, he say’s “god damn things are a nuisance, they didn’t have ‘em when I was learning, they don’t need ‘em now.”
A combination of the Tort system and personal responsibility make “Logger man” act in the best interest of his crew, to the point where he feels morally justified. But once he is justified and when the situation goes beyond “Logger mans” training or experience he starts to make excuses.
If any one can shed a different perspective on this I would be very appreciative. I love training and safety, only a little less so than tree work.
Thanks for your time and consideration of this matter.
opcorn: 
