NationStates Jolt Archive

Although this initially seems like a good proposal, I have serious concerns. The main one is fourth defining clause of "idiotic negligence":
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.
This would allow murderers in my nation to avoid prosecution, so long as they shot their victim was committing some crime, such as j-walking :shock: .
(Well, okay, in my nation, crime is unheard of, guns are outlawed, and we have no j-walking law (since cars are banned), but you get the idea)
This proposal needs to be re-written to include only self-inflicted injuries, not "Any injury".

Although this initially seems like a good proposal, I have serious concerns. The main one is fourth defining clause of "idiotic negligence":
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.
This would allow murderers in my nation to avoid prosecution, so long as they shot their victim was committing some crime, such as j-walking :shock: .
(Well, okay, in my nation, crime is unheard of, guns are outlawed, and we have no j-walking law (since cars are banned), but you get the idea)
This proposal needs to be re-written to include only self-inflicted injuries, not "Any injury".

Add it to the list. I had not even thought of that one. However, you raise a very valid point.

VOTE AGAINST

Peace,
Stephanie.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

What he means and what it says.. seems to be at odds with each other. We can't implement some thing based on "Well you know what he meant" now can we!

Peace,
Stephanie.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

No, I have in fact debated Fantasan about this and he said that he does believe that people should not be able to sue when somebody commits a crime agains't them. Or at least people shouldn't be able to sue police officers.

And what he means and what the proposal says are two completely different things, I asked Fantasan to edit it to make it so things like this wouldn't happen but he did not.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

No, I have in fact debated Fantasan about this and he said that he does believe that people should not be able to sue when somebody commits a crime agains't them. Or at least people shouldn't be able to sue police officers.

And what he means and what the proposal says are two completely different things, I asked Fantasan to edit it to make it so things like this wouldn't happen but he did not.

There you go. I've read the proposal several times and I always interpreted "Any injury..." as any SELF INFLICTED injury. It should be changed to self inflicted or we'll have a Rodney King incident every day.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

No, I have in fact debated Fantasan about this and he said that he does believe that people should not be able to sue when somebody commits a crime agains't them. Or at least people shouldn't be able to sue police officers.

And what he means and what the proposal says are two completely different things, I asked Fantasan to edit it to make it so things like this wouldn't happen but he did not.

There you go. I've read the proposal several times and I always interpreted "Any injury..." as any SELF INFLICTED injury. It should be changed to self inflicted or we'll have a Rodney King incident every day.

And I asked Fantasan to change it, yet he repeatedly ignored me. Along with him saying that police brutality cases should be illegal I am almost positive he is just tricking people to illegalize lawsuits all together.

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

No, I have in fact debated Fantasan about this and he said that he does believe that people should not be able to sue when somebody commits a crime agains't them. Or at least people shouldn't be able to sue police officers.

And what he means and what the proposal says are two completely different things, I asked Fantasan to edit it to make it so things like this wouldn't happen but he did not.

There you go. I've read the proposal several times and I always interpreted "Any injury..." as any SELF INFLICTED injury. It should be changed to self inflicted or we'll have a Rodney King incident every day.

And I asked Fantasan to change it, yet he repeatedly ignored me. Along with him saying that police brutality cases should be illegal I am almost positive he is just tricking people to illegalize lawsuits all together.

and make laws illegal?

The freedom-loving peoples of the BoB object most strenuously to this proposal and the incursion into our legal sovereignty that it represents.

The UN has no mandate to set or enforce conditions of our internal civil litigation.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

That's not a valid argument because in some areas, they are encouraged to smoke nearly to the point of force.

The military is one example. One of their arguments was it "maintains body temperature" or something in places of extreme temperature change or cold...

Another concern was there was once a lawsuit where a fast food restaurant used products in the preparation of their food they were not allowed. One used food that "wasn't fit for human consumption" and another added beef fat to the fries to "make them taste better." Shouldn't we have the right to sue if there is gross negligence on the part of the company?

What happens if someone gets ill from consuming a "high fat product", such as food poisoning?

What about "air"? Air can be damaging to the body. It's not easy controlling what we breathe and when we breathe.

What about water? I don't know everything in my water. Places that bottle water probably aren't sure enough to give you a 100% guarantee that is it is safe. If they do, they should be held liable.

I think this type of proposal is best aimed a specific nations judiciary - not to the United Nations.

Wolfish has a strong, libertarian central government - which means that the courts tend to dismiss out of hand any suit which doesn't merit their attention.

I was wondering why this proposal has more for than against votes when all the messages seem to find faults with it? The Nation of Dutopia voted against and I urge all nations with "Common Sense" to do the same. I think the UN is overstepping its power if this passes.

I would like to complain about the banning of lawsuits over beverage burns

The IRL individual who sued over scalding herself with coffee, firstly, was NOT in a moving vehicle, nor did she request frivolous amounts of money. she was in a stationary car, *haven't you ever eaten fast food in a car?* and first requested only that the temperature of the coffee be lowered, before eventually deciding that she wanted her medical bills paid as well, and rightly so, the temperature of the coffee was absurdly high, hot enough to give her severe burns to the thighs and genetals, because macdonalds thought it would be more cost effective to raise the water to this heat, in order to squeeze every last drop out of the bean. disreguarding what would happen to people if it were spilled, (easily done) or even worse, if someone actually attempted to drink the damn stuff within an hour of purchase.

therefore. it is my opinion that this is an unjust ruling, however, kudos on the tool thing.

I think perhaps too many people are voting on it too soon without analyzing it first. Just as posted above, there are flaws to this proposal that need to be corrected before a vote can be made, unless of course they are trying to purposley mislead people into voting for things they had no intention of voting for.
I agree there are way too many frivolous lawsuits that should never see the face of a court, but this has to be re-written to make valid sense before it could possibly be passed.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth urge you all to vote against this resolution. These frivolous lawsuits are not an international problem and do not require an international solution. We the PROA also feel that this legislation is seriously flawed and lacks any shred of common sense.

We thank you all for your time...

We, Emperor Andreus I of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria, believe that the Common Sense Act II is an inappropriate proposal for consideration by the United Nations. While we Pantocratorians agree with the general concept of the act (although the wording is vague enough to allow the act to be broadened beyond its intent), and feel that frivilous litigation must be reduced, we believe that this sort of legislation is well and truly within the realm of jurisdiction of national governments and judiciaries, and is not an appropriate United Nations proposal. We urge our fellow sovereigns to vote against this resolution, since to do so would be to expand the powers of the United Nations at the expense of our rights as sovereign rulers.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

This resolution is total nonsense. There are many ways for people to slip pass other laws using this new resolution. The Republic of Altum, and the United Nations of Altum rejects this resolution and hopes that all other nations will vote against it as well.

Steven,
President of Altum

Ryhope believes that any nation composed of people too stupid to find the loopholes in this resolution deserves to fall into the ocean. We're like that.

Ummm...


sorry to disagree... but please RE-READ the clause you refer to...


it states that individuals will not be allowed to file lawsuits against someone if they induce injury on themselves while committing a crime...


in the real world, this practice has occurred numerous times with devastating results...

ie, a burglar fell through a skylight onto a coffee table of the house he was burglarizing and successfully sued the owner of the house because he was injured on her property.
ie, a burglar locked himself in the garage of a home he was robbing and since the garage door didn't open, he was forced to stay in there for nearly a week with only some scarce food he found, and successfully sued the homeowners who were away on vacation...



This proposal does NOT prevent people from BEING PROSECUTED for committing a crime... it only prevents them from filing punitive civil cases against the people they were victimizing...

It does NOT allow for Police departments to get away with brutality... because of the line... incurred DURING THE COMMISSION of a crime...

Police brutality effectively occurs once the suspect is IN CUSTODY, and not committing a crime... It's hard for a police officer to abuse a suspect if he can't get his hands on him can he?

in the real world, this practice has occurred numerous times with devastating results...

ie, a burglar fell through a skylight onto a coffee table of the house he was burglarizing and successfully sued the owner of the house because he was injured on her property.
ie, a burglar locked himself in the garage of a home he was robbing and since the garage door didn't open, he was forced to stay in there for nearly a week with only some scarce food he found, and successfully sued the homeowners who were away on vacation...

Ok, I'm going to start of saying that you should read th pervious arguments first before posting. And also that you shouldn't comment abotu something that you do not know about. These cases only happen when the person was not proven guilty of the crime, which would mean they were not a burglar in the house, but a guest. There is no basis for a lawsuit anywhere IRL if you were injured during the commision of a crime.

This proposal does NOT prevent people from BEING PROSECUTED for committing a crime... it only prevents them from filing punitive civil cases against the people they were victimizing...

I agree'd with you up until they point where you started being baised. If they were not proven guilty of the crime you can't assume they were victimizing the person, they are innnocent until proven guilty.

It does NOT allow for Police departments to get away with brutality... because of the line... incurred DURING THE COMMISSION of a crime...

Police brutality effectively occurs once the suspect is IN CUSTODY, and not committing a crime... It's hard for a police officer to abuse a suspect if he can't get his hands on him can he?

Police brutality often happens while the person is commiting the crime, it would mean that if the person was in the middle of the intersection, they are in the process of runnign the light, therefore commiting a crime, so they wouldn't be able to sue. And it would mean police officers could brutalize people who there was a warrant out for, or somebody that was intruding on someone elses private property. So it wouldn't illegalize all police brutality cases, just the ones that were done while the criminal was in commision of a crime.

Greetings Thedoc,
The point remains, as was noted in another thread, that this resolution is outside the scope of the UN and as such our people have urged us to do all in our power to defeat this resolution that would infringe on our freedoms.

Procounsol for the people of Kabuverdianu

Obviously this shows what would happen if people like Richard Littlejohn were in charge. If you haven't heard of him, you don't want to (he writes a column in The S*n newspaper (owned by Rupert Murdoch) in which he lambasts everything the Labour governments says and does, all judges, left-wingers (especially Guardian readers), and anyone else who desn't fit in with his world-view. Thus he is seen as a true 'man of the people', in tune with ordinary British people. All this in spite of the fact he makes over £1 million a year for basically writing down once a week what you can hear from any old git down at the Conservative Club. Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher) is similar except he praises the Tories for every little thing they do to make our world safe from those evil Socialists and their desire to let every single asylum-seeker in the world free to rape, pillage and claim child benefit in our green and pleasant land).

All in all, the voice of 'the man in the street' isn't always the right one, and so-called 'common sense' ideas are often anything but when people try to implement them after they've been passed.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

That's not a valid argument because in some areas, they are encouraged to smoke nearly to the point of force.

The military is one example. One of their arguments was it "maintains body temperature" or something in places of extreme temperature change or cold...

Another concern was there was once a lawsuit where a fast food restaurant used products in the preparation of their food they were not allowed. One used food that "wasn't fit for human consumption" and another added beef fat to the fries to "make them taste better." Shouldn't we have the right to sue if there is gross negligence on the part of the company?

What happens if someone gets ill from consuming a "high fat product", such as food poisoning?

What about "air"? Air can be damaging to the body. It's not easy controlling what we breathe and when we breathe.

What about water? I don't know everything in my water. Places that bottle water probably aren't sure enough to give you a 100% guarantee that is it is safe. If they do, they should be held liable.

um, your point is a little faulty. those may be valid points but:
1. the army is forced to do whatever the government says; they signed up for it
2. there are laws to control pollution for the air; by the way, air isn't legal...it's just air.
3. if you're unsure about your BOTTLED water, take a look at your tap water. that crap has chlorine and lead and other nasty things. *shudders*
--NEXT:
the point of this negligence is in the part of the consumer. if you eat high fat food and gain weight, you CANNOT sue the corporation! case in point: little boy stuffs his face and porks up; he later sues McDonald's and his case is basically laughed out of court. it was HIS fault. not McDonald's.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

That's not a valid argument because in some areas, they are encouraged to smoke nearly to the point of force.

The military is one example. One of their arguments was it "maintains body temperature" or something in places of extreme temperature change or cold...

Another concern was there was once a lawsuit where a fast food restaurant used products in the preparation of their food they were not allowed. One used food that "wasn't fit for human consumption" and another added beef fat to the fries to "make them taste better." Shouldn't we have the right to sue if there is gross negligence on the part of the company?

What happens if someone gets ill from consuming a "high fat product", such as food poisoning?

What about "air"? Air can be damaging to the body. It's not easy controlling what we breathe and when we breathe.

What about water? I don't know everything in my water. Places that bottle water probably aren't sure enough to give you a 100% guarantee that is it is safe. If they do, they should be held liable.

um, your point is a little faulty. those may be valid points but:
1. the army is forced to do whatever the government says; they signed up for it
2. there are laws to control pollution for the air; by the way, air isn't legal...it's just air.
3. if you're unsure about your BOTTLED water, take a look at your tap water. that crap has chlorine and lead and other nasty things. *shudders*
--NEXT:
the point of this negligence is in the part of the consumer. if you eat high fat food and gain weight, you CANNOT sue the corporation! case in point: little boy stuffs his face and porks up; he later sues McDonald's and his case is basically laughed out of court. it was HIS fault. not McDonald's.

The Lazon Constitutional Monarchy will vote against unless there is a few alterations made to the UN resolution.

There are some persons who have mental handicap therefore they do not have full control of their common sense.Therefore these peoples should not be affected by this resolution.

I must add that if someone tries to make people think that he is mentally retard or handicaped , they will questionned by psychiatrists and psychologists.If they find that he faked his mental ilnnes , the one who brought the case in court will have to pay the services from those psychiatrist and psychologists and will have to pay a fine of 5% of his normal wage.

The Government of Lazon
Prime Minister Vincent J.Cizoco

The King of Lazon
Thomas the 1st

I urge all nations to vote against this resolution. Ignoring the loopholes and flaws in the resolution itself, it highlights the problems with the UN as a whole.

When the UN has the right to micromanage our nations for us, right down to deciding what our court systems may do, it has gotten far too powerful for it's own good. What point is there in national governments if there isn't any national sovereignty?

Every new resolution passed is a blow to the rights of member nations to govern their nations as they see fit. It's time to take our nations back into our own hands. It's time to vote no to resolutions that violate our national sovereignty.

Just say no to the Common Sense Act II.

Director Alexander Mackenna
Timbour
The New Meritocracy

in the real world, this practice has occurred numerous times with devastating results...

Wrong. There is one celebrated case where this happened, and it was because the property owner set up a death trap (with a shotgun).

in the real world, this practice has occurred numerous times with devastating results...

Wrong. There is one celebrated case where this happened, and it was because the property owner set up a death trap (with a shotgun).

While I applaud the sentiment, this issue is outside the purview of the United Nations, as have been the last several. Kaolynth votes NAY.

R/
StarWalker of Kaolynth

I find the arguments against this resolution specious except one, this does not come within the purview of the UN. Therefore The Free State of Garabaldi will vote against the resolution

Most calls for Tort Reform are driven by urban legends. The cases are either a) entirely made up, b) thrown out of court or c) hopelessly distorted by professional pundits who seek to deceive the public.

In the law there is a thing called "shared negligence" which reduces but does not eliminate damages. Both parties being dufusses doesn't cancel out the suit altogether - otherwise the negligent defendant could claim complete vindication.

In the case of the lapful of lava java, McDonalds' coffee was deliberately served at scalding hot temperatures because - get this - they assume their customers don't drink in their cars! That actually was their argument. Officially, they assume you are going to drive to work first and drink it there afterwards (once it has cooled off enroute). Accordingly, Mickey D's serves their coffee at 185 degrees - 50 degrees hotter than other restaurants or coffee makers at home. These fifty degrees can make a lot of difference as the chances for damage rise exponentially. Ronald's coffee could cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. The Granny in question needed skin grafts all over her pelvic region. By contrast, coffee served elsewhere might hurt you, but it probably won't *hospitalize* you.

Prior to the suit of the scalded grandmother, Mickey D's had quietly paid off over 700 other people who had also suffered severe burns because they reasonably assumed the coffee was safe to drink immediately. Oh yeah, McDonalds' own research showed that most people who bought coffee to go drank it in their cars. Big surprise.

Was the plaintiff stupid to put the coffee between her legs to pry off the lid? Sure. But McDonalds was stupider: stupid to assume people don't drink in vehicles (what do they think cup holders are for?), stupid to ignore their *own* consumer research which showed what everyone already knows and stupid to ignore over 700 previous burn incidents that they knew they'd loose if they ever reached court. This is "shared negligence" and accordingly damages were reduced.

Oh yeah, as a result of this case, Ronald Mc Donald has reduced the temperature at which he serves coffee. So next time you spill McCoffee in your lap and don't have to go to the hospital to have your naughty bits reupholstered, you can thank such "frivolous" lawsuits.

On tort outrage urban legends:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.htm

For more Info on the McCoffee case:
http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Pretty much for the reasons above, vote AGAINST.

There needs to be some more reviewing to this one.

The Arganian Government concur with the learned members of the Lastry Government and our government has opted to vote against this resolution.

It is not for politicians to decide what is (to coin phrase "idiotic") but for the lawyers and judges to decide what is or is not a worthy case in court. Governments are there to make the law and the legal system is there to interpreted the law. If loop holes are found or the law is misused it is up the government to review the law, in the scope and reasons it for which was written.

Secondly, and we feel most importantly, whilst we understand the sentiment this resolution is trying create it is woefully outside the scope of the UN. Our government for one will not allow what should be an international organisation for international issues interfere with the internal legal processes of our government.

To prove this point, not all nations in the world may have this issue, some legal systems are more robust than others and exist in different political climates/states.

It is not for the UN to enforce how UN members sovereign legal system's function, it can not as one organisation micro manage the needs of the entire world.

Conrad Jeckel
Royal Advisor - Regional Diplomatic Affiars
The Kingdom of Argana

There are a number of issues with this proposal that brings the CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia) to vote against its acceptance by the UN.

It is silly. Silly in the sense that is a mad-persons breakfast of a proposal completely open to sometimes contradictory interpretations. Some of those interpretations have been mentioned above and seem to have been dismissed on the “you know what s/he means” argument. This lack of detail, apart from citing certain cases, causes the whole thing to flounder in pettiness and fails to address the issue of vexatious and venal litigation.

It leaves out the question of culpability in the areas of competence and force. Should an unskilled worker who is forced to use machinery with inadequate training, at the risk of losing the job, be held responsible for injuries that may be incurred? I don’t think so: the employer and/or the supervisor in such a case are culpable.

Should a citizen not break a law in order to assist a person genuinely in distress (i.e. enter a restricted area to rescue a person swept there by a flood) if any injuries incurred in this action are considered to be their own damn fault? Surely not.

We contend that the primary aim of the proposal (to limit the number and scope of opportunistic litigation) is completely missed by a thoughtlessly scattergun approach. The absence of any motivational or causational factors just puts it in the category of “my pet hates…” It provides nothing more than a shallow diversion from the reformation of litigation law.

Not everything that occurs in the particular instances cited is due to the idiocy of the prospective claimant. That is the secret, my friends, seek the foundations before tearing away haphazardly at the structure. In other words, rewrite the bloody thing a bit more thoughtfully and we might vote for it.

(Nations must surely be voting for this daft thing in a fit of airheadedness)

Peoples Commissar
Legal & Ambulance Chasing Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

This Amendment presented to the UN is a travisty of court room law. Its shows neither the tact nor the intelligence required to deal with the complexities of any judicial system and as such the Glorious Empire of SexNDeath votes no and urges the submitant to redraft the amendment for proper consideration by the counsel.

Lord High Commissar of the Empire of SexNDeath

--NEXT:
the point of this negligence is in the part of the consumer. if you eat high fat food and gain weight, you CANNOT sue the corporation! case in point: little boy stuffs his face and porks up; he later sues McDonald's and his case is basically laughed out of court. it was HIS fault. not McDonald's.

Why the boy actually sued McDonalds is because he did not eat the burgers, which he assumed to be too fatty; he stuck to the McNuggets, because it is well known that chicken, as a white meat, has less fat than beef. However, it was revealed that the Chicken McNuggets had much more fat than the burgers. A fact McDonalds "forgot" to mention. Thus, they could be accused of leading the boy on.

And by the way, "burglarizing" is not a word, you fools. "Burgling" is the correct term.

--NEXT:
the point of this negligence is in the part of the consumer. if you eat high fat food and gain weight, you CANNOT sue the corporation! case in point: little boy stuffs his face and porks up; he later sues McDonald's and his case is basically laughed out of court. it was HIS fault. not McDonald's.

Why the boy actually sued McDonalds is because he did not eat the burgers, which he assumed to be too fatty; he stuck to the McNuggets, because it is well known that chicken, as a white meat, has less fat than beef. However, it was revealed that the Chicken McNuggets had much more fat than the burgers. A fact McDonalds "forgot" to mention. Thus, they could be accused of leading the boy on.

And by the way, "burglarizing" is not a word, you fools. "Burgling" is the correct term.

"Burglarizing" is in our Websters New World College Dictionary (c)2000 allong with burglarize, and burglarized.

And the point of this totally stupid and superfluous term?

The Most Serene Republic of Xikuang votes AGAINST the current proposal. For many of the excellent reasons already given, we encourage others to do the same.

We recognise that quite a bit of scrounging for cash from individuals and corporations on rather idiotic bases does indeed take place, but we regard this more as a phenomenon of a capitalistic legal system than a moneygrubbing proletariat. Behind every 5 and 6 figure award to an injured moron is a sagacious, and now much richer, lawyer. Rather than decrease the rights of the common people to seek redress where genuine crime has been committed, we feel that it is in the liberation of the civil justice system from capitalist greed that the solution to this problem consists.

In any case, such a particular aspect of the legal system is within the province of ondividual sovereign nations, not a matter for the UN to impose upon its membership. We would hope to see the spirit of the current proposal adopted by UN member nations, but the imposition of the letter of this law upon UN member nations should not be tolerated.

To be concise- this proposal isn't an issue for the UN, it's a local issue, from nation to nation. By brashly outlawing "Stupid lawsuits" many issues that could be swept away as "Stupid" would be. Let's just stop having to worry about this and VOTE NO.

I totally agree. This issue is purely a local matter. The UN was created to deal with the true international issues such as security and trade, not to force definitions of "common sense" onto the courts. I urge an emphatic NO vote on this resolution.

My concern is over that part that says tobacco companies can't be sued for the harm their product causes. In our nation, tobacco is nearly to the point of being illegal, we love to sue tobacco companies, that's how we ran them out of Scarias Athem. Therefoe, until you change that part about tobacco, we will vote no.

The People's Republic of Acredula is voting against this resolution/ most of our reasons have already been explained by others, so I will simply sum up:

1. The resolution is badly worded, far too vague [1], does not state actual reasons, and what reasons it does state are not based in fact [2];
2. It is outside of the scope of the UN;
3. It is based on one country's [3] legal system (and the excesses thereof), and not on any sort of world-wide trend.

Because of these problems, we believe that this resolution, if enforced, would badly damage citizens's (especially workers's) [4] rights.

We vote against this resolution, and we will gladly assist in any campaign to stop it.[5]

Footnotes, OOC:

[1] Most of the problems with this resolution's language have already been brought up by people far ssmarter than myself.

[2] Again, this was brought up before, so i'll just note that a far better way to combat people's annoyance with "frivolous lawsuits" would be a resolution to stop the media from distorting the truth for entertainment and/or profit purposes. That would also be outside of the scope of the US, more than problable impossible to actually put into a proposal without vagueness, and just as uninforcable, but at least it would make a lot more sense to me. :D

[3] To wit: The USA, but I was trying to stay IC up there. <g>

Though I must admit, a few years ago, there was talk of proposing a law over here to extend the self-defense mitigation (is that a word?) to include defense of property, if one's livelyhood depended on said property. The reason for this was that in two seperate cases, a jeweller had shot a burglar who was, at the time, robbing him. In at least one of these cases, though, the burglar was shot in the back and died.

There was a huge uproar, and people urged the courts to "listen to the people", and that is exactly why I don't want "common sense" to rule. (Justice should listen to the law, not to "the people", who can turn into a lynch mob at a moment's notice. Somebody get me off my hobby horse.)

[4] For example, corporations would not have to provide or even allow any sort of safety equipment, inspections of their machines, etc., because if their workers know the machines (or lack of gloves/hardhats/...) are unsafe, and do their job anyway, then under this resolution, the corporation is not liable.

[5] I have no idea how one would go about doing this, though. Anyone? Bueller?

What he means is the burgler can't sue the owner of the home in which he cut himself on glass while breaking in.

Which is the sort of thing that happens regularly in Britain where the rights of the criminal are more important than those of the victim.

It's already clear that this resolution is going to pass. I propose a mass exodus from the UN. I'm leaving anyway. This one is way too fucking stupid.

The following analysis of the current UN proposal brought to you by Bweezystan:

"I'm against the resolution - whether or not the UN has the mandate to encumber the legal regime of individual nations in that matter is open to debate.

However, my main concern is that the resolution is poorly worded and will result in unintended consequences.

The resolution defines "idiotic negligence" as:

"1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home."

These are all findings of fact, and as such, in a free and democratic country should be dealt with in a court of law or other tribunal. It is difficult to outright ban a cause of action on such simplistic grounds.

As for unintended consequences, point three, for example, is problematic - what if you eat a Burger, that is high in fat, but it also turns out to be undercooked, causing you food poisoning? As it reads right now, the resolution would ban any litigation arising from it, because you were eating a food high in fat.

Point number four is also a problem. Say you were going 61 KM H in a 60 zone, got cut off, and became paralyzed in a resulting car accident - according to this resolution, you could not sue for damages, as you were committing a crime (speeding).

Point number 1 is a problem - what if the hot beverage you burnt yourself was given by mistake (say you order an iced tea, and they send you real tea instead, without telling you?) - because a hot beverage burned you, you could not sue, even though you had reasonable grounds tobelieve it was a cold beverage. And what if you burn yourself with soup - a law suit would be allowed with a hot food, such as soup, but not a hot beverage - this seems incongruous.

I also see problems with point number 2. What is proper safety gear? This is a question of fact that needs to be before the courts.

The bottom line is that most of the above ills are already dealt with under the law of contributory negligence. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, a judgment of $6,000,000 in damages may be awarded. But if you are 95% contributorily negligent due to your own stupidity in burning yourself with the coffee, that sum is reduced by 95%. Often, media report huge multi-million dollar damage awards, without stating that the plaintiff was found contributorily negligent, and as such, only received a small fraction of the reported sum.

This resolution smells like a thinly veiled attempt to restrict individual freedoms, and has the unintended consequence of letting certain wrong-doers get away with negligence, due to the resolutions sloppy wording. This resolution will only serve to allow negligent parties to get away with negligently injuring people, and then relying on the resolution to evade responsibility for paying for the damages caused by their negligence.

My view is that we should leave it up to each individual nation to legislate in the areas of tort law and contributory negligence. These are not matters of international importance, and should not be legislated at the UN level.

Alternatively, if the UN for some reason does see fit to legislate negligence standards on a global scale, then it needs a far better worded resolution than the above one. The current resolution, as I have stated, has too many unintended results.
--
There is no defending this resolution. Even if you accept that this is a matter of global importance under the UN domain (which it, IMHO, clearly is not), it also fails in achieving its purpose. As stated above, this resolution results in what appears to be too many unintended consequences. It will result in many innocent people, who were not at all contributorily negligent in having their rights to receive compensation taken away from them.

Ideally, this matter should be dealt internally in each nation, through the passage of tort legislation (whether it be stronger contributory negligence laws, or the adoption of a no-fault tort scheme as is found in New Zealand and in the province of Manitoba as it relates to car accidents).

Therefore, I submit that whichever side of this issue you are on, you cannot favour this resolution. On the one hand, it is outside the scope of the intended UN mandate to deal with matters of global importance. On the other hand, even if you accept that this is a matter of global importance, the resolution fails in its limited purpose, spilling out to too many unintended consequences, and as such, also must be voted against."

- Bweezystan

I must suggest in the strongest possible means that you vote against the current resolution as I have. This resolution, while at first seems to make sense, violates the right to the freedom of speech, by prohibiting which suits can be brought in court. Of course it is ridiculous for someone to sue over fast food or coffee, but it is their right to do so. Let the highest court in a nation make a final ruling on such a matter, this will leave the right unviolated, AND solve the issue of such cases clogging the lower courts.

Emperor Oliver IX
Cabesh

I must suggest in the strongest possible means that you vote against the current resolution as I have. This resolution, while at first seems to make sense, violates the right to the freedom of speech, by prohibiting which suits can be brought in court. Of course it is ridiculous for someone to sue over fast food or coffee, but it is their right to do so. Let the highest court in a nation make a final ruling on such a matter, this will leave the right unviolated, AND solve the issue of such cases clogging the lower courts.

Emperor Oliver IX
Cabesh

if nobody likes it why is it winning

The Republic of Joven feels that this resolution intrudes into the member-states personal affairs. This matter should be determined by the country, not by the UN.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

That's not a valid argument because in some areas, they are encouraged to smoke nearly to the point of force.

The military is one example. One of their arguments was it "maintains body temperature" or something in places of extreme temperature change or cold...

Another concern was there was once a lawsuit where a fast food restaurant used products in the preparation of their food they were not allowed. One used food that "wasn't fit for human consumption" and another added beef fat to the fries to "make them taste better." Shouldn't we have the right to sue if there is gross negligence on the part of the company?

What happens if someone gets ill from consuming a "high fat product", such as food poisoning?

What about "air"? Air can be damaging to the body. It's not easy controlling what we breathe and when we breathe.

What about water? I don't know everything in my water. Places that bottle water probably aren't sure enough to give you a 100% guarantee that is it is safe. If they do, they should be held liable.

um, your point is a little faulty. those may be valid points but:
1. the army is forced to do whatever the government says; they signed up for it
2. there are laws to control pollution for the air; by the way, air isn't legal...it's just air.
3. if you're unsure about your BOTTLED water, take a look at your tap water. that crap has chlorine and lead and other nasty things. *shudders*
--NEXT:
the point of this negligence is in the part of the consumer. if you eat high fat food and gain weight, you CANNOT sue the corporation! case in point: little boy stuffs his face and porks up; he later sues McDonald's and his case is basically laughed out of court. it was HIS fault. not McDonald's.

So, I can execute my military at my leisure because I'm bored and what I say goes?

If there are clean air laws, then that implies that breathing is legal and a basic right. Because of the structure of this law, (and since it IS the UN) it supersedes any national law. Under this law, I could pump poisonous gases into the air of a neighboring country (that is in the UN) and there isn't much that can be done about it?

Reguardless of what you think about fast food, they have the responsibility to not intentionally kill their customers. I can't just dump poison into the food.

Water can be potentially dangerous. If someone drowns you, they are allowed to murder you. Any beverage that is packaged, contains large amounts of water. Some companies are more concerned about their bottom line and don't care about quality. "Crap" was actually found in some of the water along with everything else. Some even bottled tap water.

Tobacco companies should not be sued, they should be destroyed, but that's just my opinion, the people are the ones who make the final judgement call on whether or not to pruchase and use it...
In criminal cases, what is the generally accepted view of this is, the committer of the crime can not sue the person they were trying to wrong...they cant sue someone for falling down their stairs while trying to stab them..lol...this simply is trying to rid the court system of people looking for attention in all the wrong places..

This debate is becoming increasingly irrelevant. It clearly appears the lickspittles of the UN will pass this absolute mockery of a UN convention. It is abjectly unworkable as law and clearly little more than a tool to legitimise oppression of the working classes, protection of the dangerous practices of capital and the debasement of the principal of free speech. Its seemingly amusing and inoffensive intent is a hollow reflection of the ugly bushite “war against terrorism”, currently being used in the ‘real’ world for all manner of unrelated and nefarious crimes against humanity.

While we at CPOWSOS fully understand Ryanania’s position of abstention from the UN, we believe there is one opportunity left. That is an alliance of those who have voiced opposition to this idiocy to band together in an unlikely alliance of all those who see the dark side of this proposition to lobby bloody hard all those in their regions to try and turn this thing around. If we fail, my friends, we should then consider means to have this stupid idea expunged. While many of us will disagree on many issues, some to the point of war, this may be a position we can rally around in the short term.

If we fail, only then will it become apparent that this organisation does not operate in any sane and cohesive manner with regard to thoughtful and relevant legislation. Only then should we consider withdrawing from the UN, but there is little point in taking such steps in the manner of individual nation resignations – a little trickle of rightly disgruntled nations will have little or no impact on the UN and such foolishness will be continue to plague those who follow. If we were to take such a step it should be en masse. Remember though, it is only through some organised action can we realise success. It may be that a new and temporary region could emerge but we’re not sure if this would be viable. We look forward to any and all suggestions. Really.

CPOWSOS will post this on the main forum page with reference to this thread.

Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.

I think "without safety gear" should at least be "without proper safety gear."

Unless you establish some quality of this safety gear, then this part is meaningless. Are we supposed to live in bubbles and wear bulky hockey pads everywhere? Wearing too much safety gear becomes self-defeating because it would hinder the proper use of the tool. Then, someone would claim they are wearing the safety gear but the company says they are not wearing enough. (Safety gear is also a tool. )

If we fail, only then will it become apparent that this organisation does not operate in any sane and cohesive manner with regard to thoughtful and relevant legislation. Only then should we consider withdrawing from the UN, but there is little point in taking such steps in the manner of individual nation resignations – a little trickle of rightly disgruntled nations will have little or no impact on the UN and such foolishness will be continue to plague those who follow. Remember though, it is only through some organised action can we realise success. It may be that a new and temporary region could emerge but we’re not sure if this would be viable. We look forward to any and all suggestions. Really.


Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

In theory, right before it goes into effect, if everyone leaves and immediately reapplies, then by the time they re-enter the UN they will not be affected by it.

If we fail, only then will it become apparent that this organisation does not operate in any sane and cohesive manner with regard to thoughtful and relevant legislation. Only then should we consider withdrawing from the UN, but there is little point in taking such steps in the manner of individual nation resignations – a little trickle of rightly disgruntled nations will have little or no impact on the UN and such foolishness will be continue to plague those who follow. Remember though, it is only through some organised action can we realise success. It may be that a new and temporary region could emerge but we’re not sure if this would be viable. We look forward to any and all suggestions. Really.


Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

In theory, right before it goes into effect, if everyone leaves and immediately reapplies, then by the time they re-enter the UN they will not be affected by it.

Yeah, I have been doing this for a few of the past resolutions but it is beside the point. Fantasan can't write senseless blubber that he recycled out of something his deranged liberal hating father said and pass it in the UN simply by putting human rights on it. And worst of all, he didn't even back up his argument, every time you face him with something that proves him wrong he called you a communist and leaves.

We should still shoot down this proposal, it's not impossible, it is actually very probable. We just need to work harder and telegram the delegates voting for it.

I ask you to reconsider your vote on the latest UN Resolution: Common Sense Act II. This resolution, while a good one in theory is not one for the UN to be bringing to the world's nation. This needs to be determined on a country to country basis. For Free nations, this takes away your citizens freedoms, it is up to the courts to decide which cases are frivolous, and they do so.

Please reconsider, re-read the wording of the resolution, and visit the forum for further discussion.

Vote Against the Common Sense Act II

I ask you to reconsider your vote on the latest UN Resolution: Common Sense Act II. This resolution, while a good one in theory is not one for the UN to be bringing to the world's nation. This needs to be determined on a country to country basis. For Free nations, this takes away your citizens freedoms, it is up to the courts to decide which cases are frivolous, and they do so.

Please reconsider, re-read the wording of the resolution, and visit the forum for further discussion.

Vote Against the Common Sense Act II

And for those countries which are not free I am certian that those in power do not wish to be further beholden to a governing body above themselves. This Is strictly a local issue.

JUst VOTE AGAINST IT!!!!!!

This proposal goes against the constitution of any democratic country. In fact in real world this proposal would have overruled by any "constitutional council" for breaking a basic human right. Obviously there is no such council in NS or the council is not doing its job.

VOTE AGAINST !!!

As I've already spent weeks defending the merits of this proposal, and hearing nothing but criticism from the same bunch of anti-capitalist/anti-responsibility extremists (and a few who defend their decision on the ever popular "National Sovereignty" excuse), I'm not going to waste time trying to convince those of you who have made up your minds. Though I do have a few things to say.

First of all, Tisonica... SHUT UP! I am sick of seeing you get away with insulting and mocking me, daring to ridicule my intelligence simply because you disagree with me. Though, because you're a good little liberal, I guess the Mods won't touch you!

Secondly, Any of you who have previously voted for most of the past UN resolutions have already violated National Sovereignty and made a mockery of the UN. You who support such outlandish resolutions as "Free Education" "Metric System" "Required Basic Healthcare" "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" or a whole host of others have already sided with issues which extremely infringe on a nation's rights to self governance. If you dared to support these past resolutions, I suggest you stop saying this resolution will violate the UN's mandate, because it's a baseless argument which vanishes as soon as you see a proposal that's part of your political agenda.

What are you afraid of? People sueing tabacco companies? Whats the big deal? I think tabacco companies should be treated like drug dealers the only difference is tabacco is legal. They sell death. They must pay. I dont say consumers are not responsible i just say dealers are responsible as well and they are making a living of it. They must pay even more.
This proposal is against democracy. It will restrain citizens civil rights to protect the big companies. I could speak about citizens sueing the state for police brutality.

VOTE AGAINST !!!!

What are you afraid of? People sueing tabacco companies? Whats the big deal? I think tabacco companies should be treated like drug dealers the only difference is tabacco is legal. They sell death. They must pay. I dont say consumers are not responsible i just say dealers are responsible as well and they are making a living of it. They must pay even more.
This proposal is against democracy. It will restrain citizens civil rights to protect the big companies. I could speak about citizens sueing the state for police brutality.

VOTE AGAINST !!!!

That is a pointless argument. If Tobacco is so evil as drugs, just ban it, and have the government confiscate their money for reparations. Don't make something legal, smoke it a couple of decades, then snivel and whine that you couldn't help yourself and you want daddy tobacco to pay for the harm you did to yourself. It's against democracy to have legal companies be robbed blind. It's against my civil rights for a burglar who stubs his toe on my window sill to sue me for mental anguish!

And the police brutality stuff has no merit whatsoever. This has nothing to do with police brutality cases. If a cop uses excessive force and isn't punished, it's the state's fault for having thug cops and not caring about civil rights! This is not about protecting thug cops, it's about stopping stupid criminals from using the law to steal even more!

Obviously, though, the majority of the opponents lack this basic common sense to tell the difference between right and wrong, and don't care about personal responsibility.

Fantasan, listen mate, anti-responsibilty and anti capitalism have very little in common and if you got off your high-horse and dropped the faux affronted attitude you might recognise that a lot of the responses to your ill-concieved proposals do indeed accept the stupidity in nation state based legislation and constitutions that allows such idiotic litigation, such as the ones you cite, to succeed.

Boo hoo, so you have copped some criticism (some demeaning your alleged intellegence). What did you expect when you move such an inept proposal to address a serious issue? Admiring claps on the back and a round of beers? Try instigating some legislation that addresses common and problematic issues instead of a juvenile list of your pet-hates in future. Try a dose of your own much-revered but patently absent ‘common sense’.

Apparently, you have to accept that what has caused such animosity to your proposal is that it lacks any resolution to the problem you complain about in the first place, in fact it introduces a whole new range of headaches for the judiciary and administrative bodies which oversee such legislation.

Undersecretary
Polemic & Punctuation Shortage Secrétariat
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

And the police brutality stuff has no merit whatsoever. This has nothing to do with police brutality cases. If a cop uses excessive force and isn't punished, it's the state's fault for having thug cops and not caring about civil rights! This is not about protecting thug cops, it's about stopping stupid criminals from using the law to steal even more!



Except that with wording like that, it is indeed protecting police brutality. And negligence in product safety measures.
If you want to address specific matters, do so. The proposal you have made however is so vague any lawyer could go right through it. You don't even need a lawyer for that, even I could do do really nasty things and be protected by this resolution.

I don't care a flying fuck what you meant in your resolution, all I care what actually is written in it. Learn to write passable laws and we'll discuss.

As stated, I have voted against the resolution and will check the situation tomorrow. If the resolution is about to be passed, I will leave UN for such extremely dangerous rulings have no place in my country.

And the police brutality stuff has no merit whatsoever. This has nothing to do with police brutality cases. If a cop uses excessive force and isn't punished, it's the state's fault for having thug cops and not caring about civil rights! This is not about protecting thug cops, it's about stopping stupid criminals from using the law to steal even more!



Except that with wording like that, it is indeed protecting police brutality. And negligence in product safety measures.
If you want to address specific matters, do so. The proposal you have made however is so vague any lawyer could go right through it. You don't even need a lawyer for that, even I could do do really nasty things and be protected by this resolution.

I don't care a flying f--- what you meant in your resolution, all I care what actually is written in it. Learn to write passable laws and we'll discuss.

As stated, I have voted against the resolution and will check the situation tomorrow. If the resolution is about to be passed, I will leave UN for such extremely dangerous rulings have no place in my country.

Don't leave, a few of us are going to get together and make a very asseverative effort to repeal this horrible resolution... wait and see how it goes and we will need all the support of the people who seen through this junk.

Peace,
Stephanie.

This legislation is unworkable, and a danger to my nations society. If passed i will give the UN 2 real life weeks to repeal it, or we walk and the nations with in my region will walk with me. (we have discussed this matter away from this site.)

It's cruch time for the UN I'm afraid, is the organisation a genuine place for nations to discuss their grievences and make security decisions, or is it a cynical attempt to forge a world nation in the likeness of a few?

Rightio Stephistan, we'll trust you on this one. Still, perhaps a more rigorous proposal system should be put in place...

Secondly, Any of you who have previously voted for most of the past UN resolutions have already violated National Sovereignty and made a mockery of the UN. You who support such outlandish resolutions as "Free Education" "Metric System" "Required Basic Healthcare" "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles" or a whole host of others have already sided with issues which extremely infringe on a nation's rights to self governance. If you dared to support these past resolutions, I suggest you stop saying this resolution will violate the UN's mandate, because it's a baseless argument which vanishes as soon as you see a proposal that's part of your political agenda.

What's wrong with "free education"? I think it give anyone under 18 to "free education" from anything they disagree. It leaves the decision on how to educate your people up to your country.

If nothing else, this proposed resolution violates THAT.

That is a pointless argument. If Tobacco is so evil as drugs, just ban it, and have the government confiscate their money for reparations. Don't make something legal, smoke it a couple of decades, then snivel and whine that you couldn't help yourself and you want daddy tobacco to pay for the harm you did to yourself. It's against democracy to have legal companies be robbed blind. It's against my civil rights for a burglar who stubs his toe on my window sill to sue me for mental anguish!

If it is the will of the majority to sue big tobacco, then isn't that democracy?

And the police brutality stuff has no merit whatsoever. This has nothing to do with police brutality cases. If a cop uses excessive force and isn't punished, it's the state's fault for having thug cops and not caring about civil rights! This is not about protecting thug cops, it's about stopping stupid criminals from using the law to steal even more!

By forcing this on people, it overrides any national law... Isn't that all a matter of intent? Some people go out to pick fights with other people. The police are people too. If you don't put anything to prevent police brutality, that makes it legal as long as it falls under this "law'.

Obviously, though, the majority of the opponents lack this basic common sense to tell the difference between right and wrong, and don't care about personal responsibility.

Isn't that supposed to be the intend of this resolution? I thought you wanted to establish common sense? I guess if there are this many people disagreeing with it, "common sense" isn't all that common.

The Common Sense Act II, as a whole, is unworkable as a matter of law. I shall address each individual item to which Argelius objects:

"Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist."

The statement makes the implicit assumption that the sole purpose in filing lawsuits is to "cash in." It also assumes that a wealthy person (or company) who is being sued is thereby being harassed. In other words, it acquits the defendant in advance of the trial, thus diminishing the right of the plaintiff to be heard.

"Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued."

While the Act goes on to define "idiotic negligence" (which definition I shall address forthwith), the above statement nonetheless makes an untrue assertion, to wit: that frivolous lawsuits violate the defendants' civil liberties. On the contrary, to forbid lawsuits is to violate the civil liberties of the prospective plaintiffs, who have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. The purpose of courts of equity is to allow a petitioner, who believes he has been harmed in some fashion, to present his case. To limit subject-matter jurisdiction is to make assumptions about future acts, and to provide loopholes to prospective defendants. To leave the system open-ended allows everyone the same right to access to the judicial system.

It should also be noted that rules of civil procedure already allow courts to dismiss cases in which the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Furthermore, a plaintiff who loses is also generally held liable for the legal costs of the defendant, thus providing an existing legal structure in which to hold plaintiffs responsible for filing frivolous lawsuits. Therefore, the present proposal is at best redundant.

Finally, since the jury in such cases is the ultimate authority in terms of findings of fact (and the judge is limited to application of the law), the present proposal requires the legal system to remain ignorant of the facts and legislate them in advance.

Now, on to the Act's definitions of "idiotic negligence:"

"1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee."

This definition presumes, in advance, facts not in evidence. It is possible for such burning to be the responsibility of the defendant - for example, by providing a container inadequate to contain the hot beverage in question. A damaged cup that leaks or breaks, for example, would be the responsibility of the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Such facts must be determined by the jury and cannot be determined by the judge so as to dismiss the matter without trial.

"2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do."

This provision similarly relies on facts which must be determined at trial. That is, the defendant would have to demonstrate the recklessness or impropriety of the use of the tool in question. Or, since the burden of proof is really on the plaintiff, the plaintiff must have the opportunity to prove that he became injured while using the tool properly according to the instructions. Either way, the definition requires the judge to make a finding of fact without any evidence.

"3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco."

Providers of these products are acting irresponsibly in creating and selling these products, particularly since they provide advertisements intended to persuade one to buy them - i.e., the product providers seek to persuade people to act irresponsibly.

In the case of tobacco in particular, the product providers spent decades suppressing research demonstrating the harmful effects of their products and opposing government investigation into the same, thus preventing the public from making an informed decision while addicting them to the products. Thus, fast food and tobacco really belong in separate categories.

However, given that the facts are currently known, I would be provisionally willing to leave this definition alone, pending further argument to the contrary.

"4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home."

This definition is completely unobjectionable.

All sensible governments will vote against this insane proposal! Sovereign states should decide their own laws, not have laws forced upon them by fools.

Democratic Republic of Onolia

The Common Sense Act II, as a whole, is unworkable as a matter of law. I shall address each individual item to which Argelius objects:

"Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist."

The statement makes the implicit assumption that the sole purpose in filing lawsuits is to "cash in." It also assumes that a wealthy person (or company) who is being sued is thereby being harassed. In other words, it acquits the defendant in advance of the trial, thus diminishing the right of the plaintiff to be heard.

"Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued."

While the Act goes on to define "idiotic negligence" (which definition I shall address forthwith), the above statement nonetheless makes an untrue assertion, to wit: that frivolous lawsuits violate the defendants' civil liberties. On the contrary, to forbid lawsuits is to violate the civil liberties of the prospective plaintiffs, who have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. The purpose of courts of equity is to allow a petitioner, who believes he has been harmed in some fashion, to present his case. To limit subject-matter jurisdiction is to make assumptions about future acts, and to provide loopholes to prospective defendants. To leave the system open-ended allows everyone the same right to access to the judicial system.

It should also be noted that rules of civil procedure already allow courts to dismiss cases in which the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Furthermore, a plaintiff who loses is also generally held liable for the legal costs of the defendant, thus providing an existing legal structure in which to hold plaintiffs responsible for filing frivolous lawsuits. Therefore, the present proposal is at best redundant.

Finally, since the jury in such cases is the ultimate authority in terms of findings of fact (and the judge is limited to application of the law), the present proposal requires the legal system to remain ignorant of the facts and legislate them in advance.

Now, on to the Act's definitions of "idiotic negligence:"

"1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee."

This definition presumes, in advance, facts not in evidence. It is possible for such burning to be the responsibility of the defendant - for example, by providing a container inadequate to contain the hot beverage in question. A damaged cup that leaks or breaks, for example, would be the responsibility of the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Such facts must be determined by the jury and cannot be determined by the judge so as to dismiss the matter without trial.

"2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do."

This provision similarly relies on facts which must be determined at trial. That is, the defendant would have to demonstrate the recklessness or impropriety of the use of the tool in question. Or, since the burden of proof is really on the plaintiff, the plaintiff must have the opportunity to prove that he became injured while using the tool properly according to the instructions. Either way, the definition requires the judge to make a finding of fact without any evidence.

"3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco."

Providers of these products are acting irresponsibly in creating and selling these products, particularly since they provide advertisements intended to persuade one to buy them - i.e., the product providers seek to persuade people to act irresponsibly.

In the case of tobacco in particular, the product providers spent decades suppressing research demonstrating the harmful effects of their products and opposing government investigation into the same, thus preventing the public from making an informed decision while addicting them to the products. Thus, fast food and tobacco really belong in separate categories.

However, given that the facts are currently known, I would be provisionally willing to leave this definition alone, pending further argument to the contrary.

"4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home."

This definition is completely unobjectionable.

Nicely done. Well stated. Bravo.

I'm a conservative (GO BUSH!) and before it became clear that this resolution was going to pass and I left the UN, I voted against it. This has nothing to do with being liberal; I just don't like people telling me how my courts will work. My nation already agrees with the policies set forth in the common sense act II, but we posit that such things should not be forced on everyone. This is almost as bad as the metric resolution.

Although this initially seems like a good proposal, I have serious concerns. The main one is fourth defining clause of "idiotic negligence":
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.
This would allow murderers in my nation to avoid prosecution, so long as they shot their victim was committing some crime, such as j-walking :shock: .
(Well, okay, in my nation, crime is unheard of, guns are outlawed, and we have no j-walking law (since cars are banned), but you get the idea)
This proposal needs to be re-written to include only self-inflicted injuries, not "Any injury". Your citazens are in trouble of you outlawed guns.

Although this initially seems like a good proposal, I have serious concerns. The main one is fourth defining clause of "idiotic negligence":
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.
This would allow murderers in my nation to avoid prosecution, so long as they shot their victim was committing some crime, such as j-walking :shock: .
(Well, okay, in my nation, crime is unheard of, guns are outlawed, and we have no j-walking law (since cars are banned), but you get the idea)
This proposal needs to be re-written to include only self-inflicted injuries, not "Any injury". Your citazens are in trouble of you outlawed guns.

Although this initially seems like a good proposal, I have serious concerns. The main one is fourth defining clause of "idiotic negligence":
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.
This would allow murderers in my nation to avoid prosecution, so long as they shot their victim was committing some crime, such as j-walking :shock: .
(Well, okay, in my nation, crime is unheard of, guns are outlawed, and we have no j-walking law (since cars are banned), but you get the idea)
This proposal needs to be re-written to include only self-inflicted injuries, not "Any injury". Your citazens are in trouble of you outlawed guns.

First of all, Tisonica... SHUT UP! I am sick of seeing you get away with insulting and mocking me, daring to ridicule my intelligence simply because you disagree with me. Though, because you're a good little liberal, I guess the Mods won't touch you!

I have not flamed you at all, you have in fact flamed me. I am not a troller or a spammer, I cannot however say the same for you. And do not tell me to shut up, just because you don't have a reasonable argument doesn't mean that I should shut up, if anything all it means is you are wrong.

You have no answered anybody's questions in here, and in no way does people voting on other resolutions mean they cannot complain, your resolution is a stupid one, so they complain. They have every right to.

And quit claiming the mods are all in a liberal conspiracy against you, just because your father hated all liberals and communist and, by your own words, said we need to take up arms against them, doesn't mean he was right.

And the police brutality stuff has no merit whatsoever. This has nothing to do with police brutality cases. If a cop uses excessive force and isn't punished, it's the state's fault for having thug cops and not caring about civil rights! This is not about protecting thug cops, it's about stopping stupid criminals from using the law to steal even more!



Except that with wording like that, it is indeed protecting police brutality. And negligence in product safety measures.
If you want to address specific matters, do so. The proposal you have made however is so vague any lawyer could go right through it. You don't even need a lawyer for that, even I could do do really nasty things and be protected by this resolution.

I don't care a flying f--- what you meant in your resolution, all I care what actually is written in it. Learn to write passable laws and we'll discuss.

As stated, I have voted against the resolution and will check the situation tomorrow. If the resolution is about to be passed, I will leave UN for such extremely dangerous rulings have no place in my country.

Don't leave, a few of us are going to get together and make a very asseverative effort to repeal this horrible resolution... wait and see how it goes and we will need all the support of the people who seen through this junk.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Don't give up yet. I'm still telegramming delegates that have voted for this to change their minds.

Despite being behind by a 2:1 margin, momentum seems to favor us. They've peaked about 5,000 Monday and have barely grown since. obviously a lot of folks voted before thinking about it. People are starting to realize that they voted on the basis of urban legend arguments. We may not catch up by Friday, but this bodes well for a sucessful repeal.

"4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home."

This definition is completely unobjectionable.

Upon viewing a post in another thread, I find I must alter my view here. Definition #4 of "idiotic neglegence" (sic) also includes petty crimes and misdemeanors, such as jaywalking or crossing against a "Don't Walk" sign, littering, or perhaps even parking in a handicap parking space. Despite the single example provided, the definition itself is far too open-ended.

The Empire of HC, and all loyal hooker-lovers therein do understand the intent of the resolution. However, the UN has no say on how I can run my county's judicial system.

Though I do have similiar measures against such frivolous lawsuits, the UN is overstepping it's boundaries.

My Empire is against such resoultion.

The Empire of HC, and all loyal hooker-lovers therein do understand the intent of the resolution. However, the UN has no say on how I can run my county's judicial system.

Though I do have similiar measures against such frivolous lawsuits, the UN is overstepping it's boundaries.

My Empire is against such resoultion.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would like to point out that this resolution has aleady passed. Therefore any more debate is just putting the dodo on the protected species list.