Author Topic: Never thought this would happen (Read 576 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** March 21, 2002, 12:05:00 PM »

I agree with DJ. Doesn't matter how much warning you give. They need to eliminate or reduce risks that are forseeable and avoidable. I think the lawyers will be lining up for this one.

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** March 21, 2002, 02:12:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I agree with DJ. Doesn't matter how much warning you give. They need to eliminate or reduce risks that are forseeable and avoidable. I think the lawyers will be lining up for this one.

Doesn't mean they'll get anywhere with it. I recall a case a few years ago where a man got hit by a golf ball on the course and sued the person that hit the ball. Court said that a golf course is inherently dangerous and ruled for the defendant.

Same situation in a hockey arena. Plenty of warnings all over the place including the back of your ticket. The place is dangerous and probably always will be.

Oh... and netting may be an option except that people WANT to catch the pucks.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #17 on:** March 21, 2002, 02:59:16 PM »

due to the very remote possibility of this happening they prolly won't do much except increase awareness of the dangers.

To extend the glass would mean loss of money.
costs of upgrading facilities and reduced sight-lines for spectators.
For every person that believes the NHL should do something (like above) there are 10 people that disagree.

One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.

IMO the league has done a LOT to keep people safe.
I mean.. where do you think the glass came from in the first place?
It sure isn't great for the players (the seamless stuff that improves vision for spectators). Much more dangerous for the players in fact, and none safer for the spectators.

and.. as far as car manufacturers go, they only do 'something' for safety when they are absolutely forced to.
Read the back of your hockey ticket.. explains it all.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #18 on:** March 21, 2002, 03:15:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng due to the very remote possibility of this happening they prolly won't do much except increase awareness of the dangers.

We'll have to wait and see on that. Its the first time they've been forced to reconsider the situation. Most radical safety modifications are spawned by a fatality. This aplies across the board in sports.

Quote

To extend the glass would mean loss of money.
costs of upgrading facilities and reduced sight-lines for spectators.
For every person that believes the NHL should do something (like above) there are 10 people that disagree.

1. Its a deductable expense.. not a loss of money. There is a big difference. Losing fans is a loss of money.... an enduring loss.

2. You're pulling numbers out of your ass.

Quote

One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.

But everyone must make an effort. Then, in situations like this.. it comes down to wether a "reasonable" effort was made. Insurance companies aren't too keen on letting the courts decide their fates in situations like this... so they aply the pressure to prevent them themselves.

Quote

IMO the league has done a LOT to keep people safe.
I mean.. where do you think the glass came from in the first place?
It sure isn't great for the players (the seamless stuff that improves vision for spectators). Much more dangerous for the players in fact, and none safer for the spectators.

Umm.. you're saying the glass doesn't make it any safer for the spectators? I'd like to understand your reasoning on this.

Quote

and.. as far as car manufacturers go, they only do 'something' for safety when they are absolutely forced to.

That's not true. Safety sells. One car company will always drive another to advance in safety as long as they can use it as a selling point. Airbags were developed by a car company long before they were forced on the rest of them.

Quote

Read the back of your hockey ticket.. explains it all.

You can print whatever you want on a ticket. Its irrelevant in the courts. Did they take the apropriate precausions? Was there neglegence on behalf of the league? These issues aren't solved on a ticket.

I believe the warnings were apropriate. I believe te precautions were apropriate. The question is... now that someone has finally died due to a puck strike... with the league STILL feel they are apropriate.

AKDejaVu

midnight Target · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2002, 03:26:10 PM »

Quote

One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.

Trite but true.....however all FORSEEABLE and AVOIDABLE risks must be dealt with. This "puck strike" can be argued to be a known risk that was ignored. Why print a warning on the ticket if you didn't know there was a danger. Why erect glass or make it higher if there was not a known danger.

Even if this was an unforseeable accident, it just became a known hazard and the danger must be reduced to as low a level as realistically possible.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** March 21, 2002, 05:54:01 PM »

Add to it the coroner's report. She died from a rare injury. I guess this means that the puck strike would not have been fatal for almost everyone else.