Taking Personal Responsibility to new lows.

WTP-GC wrote:

Lantley wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
Why are you so concerned about needing an explanation for them to be on the hill?? By constantly wanting a reason for use of the hill, it's like you're looking for an an excuse to not take responsilbity for your property. (Yes, I know it's not your park). How is this any different than the reviewer not taking responsibility on their end?

Please share the name of your park so we don't visit it, for fear that if we leave the actual confine of our campsite that we might be chastised for doing so. Based on your position, I'm not sure how any campground can function with hiking trails or bike paths. Wille customer be required to submit to a full investigative inquiry if they got a splinter while not on their actual assigned campsite?

Your insurnace example is irrelevant. If you contend that this is not what insurance is for, then perhaps you can try to go a few years without it. Just roll the dice and hope that everyone stays within the boundaries of their campsite.

Once again, I fully acknowledged that the review is silly and sad, but c'mon now...

Insurance is for legitimate claims. It is not a free for all fund to be abused with false claims.
Unfortunately they are many bogus claims placed upon the system that we all pay for in the end.

Insurance is for the petty claims and serious claims and everything in between. In many cases, it's there to protect the insured from the petty. You pay those sometimes high premiums so that your insurance company can decide what's petty or serious...so that you don't have to be burdened by it. I don't disagree that insurance is for so-called legitimate claims, but sometimes it must be used for for the not-so legitimate. It's the nature of the beast.

But still, my point revolves around the irony of pointing out someone's supposed lack of responsibility by suggesting that they were somehow a rule-breaker for use of campground facilities (ie a hill). The attempt has been made to paint this hill as a highly difficult mountain ledge wrought with natural hazards. In reality, it's probably a gently sloping hill that campers normally play on everyday. No, it doesn't make the situation any better, but the OP shouldn't complain about someone's lack of responsibility by refusing to take responsibility on their own. My children act that way...

Actually, the petty claims come directly out of my pocket. It's called the deductible. Even the most ridiculous lawsuit costs the defendant, in this case the RV park money. There is the deductible, there is the increase in premiums due to claims, and there is the cost in time, money, and mental energy that is spent either defending the lawsuit or gathering the paperwork to settle the nuisance claim since that is what insurance companies normally do seeing that the cost of settling is less than the cost of defending and winning. My point is every time someone sues for an event that is actually not the fault of the person being sued, that defendant pays a price and in the case of businesses, those costs are passed on to the end consumer of their product. So that rate you pay for your RV site includes the unearned spoils some guy got because he twisted his ankle playing on a hillside (your supposition, not mine).
If your supposition is correct and it is a gently sloping hill that people normally play on, how is it even 1 percent the fault of the park if someone slips and breaks their ankle? Is it your position that it is the fault of the landowner should anyone have a medical issue on that property? I mean, there is very little difference between turning your ankle and suffering a fracture due to a gentle slope and walking that same slope and suffering a heart attack. Both of those medical events are heightened by even a gentle incline. Is the park responsible for the heart attack victim's medical bills and pain and suffering?
I would love to see a change in how our legal system handles tort law. How about the judge and/or jury being able to award multiple outcomes.
1. This is a legitimate dispute and the system stays the same.
2. This is a dispute where the preponderance of the evidence points to an outcome that was in favor of the defendant, so the plaintiff is responsible for the legal expenses of the defendant.
3. This is a ridiculous lawsuit, should never have been brought by the plaintiff and their attorney, so the verdict is a reversal of the claim and the plaintiff and their attorney must pay the defendant's expenses and pay a crime victim's compensation fund the amount they were seeking.
This would be an incentive for insurance companies to actually defend sham lawsuits as well as preventing those lawsuits from being filed in the first place. And it shouldn't be a barrier that prevents actual claims from being pursued.