Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi everyone

]

Well if you organised a run and got everyone to sign a disclaimer then you are liable for any injury or death caused by an accident.

Under the current leglislation it would fall under "Duty of Care".

You see , you knew some one could get injured or killed on the run thats why you made them sign the disclaimer so you could have prevented it by cancelling the event, you would be held resposible for the injury or death, you are the organiser. You contributed to the injury or death by running the event and putting people in the position to be injured.

You see they could be out driving themself around getting killed on our roads and thats OK, you have gathered them on a run and organised them into a situation and possibly orchestrated their fate.

Now I'm starting to get confused !!!!!!.

this is the world we live in, be careful !!!!

And try and have a nice day.

Originally posted by MR-GTR

Hi everyone

]

Well if you organised a run and got everyone to sign a disclaimer then you are liable for any injury or death caused by an accident.

Under the current leglislation it would fall under "Duty of Care".

You see , you knew some one could get injured or killed on the run thats why you made them sign the disclaimer so you could have prevented it by cancelling the event, you would be held resposible for the injury or death, you are the organiser. You contributed to the injury or death by running the event and putting people in the position to be injured.  

You see they could be out driving themself around getting killed on our roads and thats OK, you have gathered them on a run and organised them into a situation and possibly orchestrated their  fate.

Now I'm starting to get confused !!!!!!.

this is the world we live in, be careful !!!!

And try and have a nice day.

That is too broad, there are things such as the 'but for' test, which attempts to find as well as limit liability simultaneously.

ie: but for the cruise being held, would the incident have occurred? or is it but for the actions of the party at fault in an accident, would the harm have been caused? it would be the latter, duty of care revolves around whether the person organising the cruise was put in a position where there was a special relationship with the person suffered harm, quite arguble as in 'how was this duty different from other road incidents under the same circumstances, albeit organised?' was the actions of the tortfeasor (person at fault) were such where the harm suffered to the plaintiff was that reasonbly expected?

the only way this would come to be fully understood would be in each individual writ/civil case. disclaimers do not waive complete liability especially where there is negligence or other fault elements in failing to provide an adequate duty of care.

there is never an true and clear cut answer.

what your saying is very true, but in some cases it does come down to the person(judge) presiding over the individual case, here on the gold coast a person left a hotel bar intoxicated on foot, crossed a road 80 mtrs away and was hit by a car, the plaintiff sued the hotel and the bar tender for "Duty of Care". was awarded $1,600,000aus .

Basically the staff should have known there was a chance he would be hit by a car as he was drunk when he left the hotel. it was deemed their fault he drunk so much and got drunk and got run over.

beets me !!!

Do you know of any crazy outcomes.

Regards

Steve

Another one I loved, from a soccer club around the corner.

Lady gets drunk, staff stop serving her and offer to get her a cab home. She refuses, screaming/yelling, gets escorted out. Then opens the bottle she had bough earlier from the bottle shop, gets even drunker.

Walks onto road out front, gets hit by cab.

Sues club for not giving "duty of care". Wins.

Everything is someone else's fault these days

Hmm Since we are not a club as such but just a group of people who contact each other over the web then we are not a collective so to speak, so who are they gunna sue? Not the cruise organiser as he is not responsible for the person driving (or trying to drive) nor the other vehicle that may be at fault.

Honestly who could be held responsible for the fact that someone else caused there own death due to their stupidity.

The reason cigrette companies were sued was that there product could only have been satistically correllated to the death of smokers. Silly ......but true.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • I've got the rear ones, they're certainly beefy. I need to take them to my driveshaft guru to check over, he's very fussy about the quality of components so I'll let you know if they are made of cheese by a blind man.   Are you in Australia? A mate just had a set of EN26 shafts made for his K20 Lotus by our fabricator which were quite cheap (compared to Driveshaft Shop) so if you can procure the CV's and draw what you need he'd make them for ~$800 for the pair.
    • Had I known the diff between R32 and R33 suspension I would have R33 suspension. That ship has sailed so I'm doing my best to replicate a drop spindle without spending $4k on a Billet one.
    • OEM suspension starts to bind as soon as the car gets away from stock height. I locked in the caster and camber before cutting off the kingpin. I then let the upright down in a natural (unbound) state before re-attaching it. Now it moves freely in bump and droop relative to the new ride height. My plan is to add GKTech arms before the car is finished so I can dial camber and caster further. It will be fine. This isn't rocket science. Caster looks good, camber is good, upper arm doesn't cause crazy gain and it is now closer to the stock angle and bump steer checks out. Send it.
    • Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).
    • The frontend wouldn't go low enough because the coilover was max low and the upper control arm would collapse into itself and potentially bottom out in the strut tower. I made a brace and cut off the kingpin and then moved the upright down 1.25" and welded. i still have to finish but this gives an idea. Now I can have a normal 3.25" of shock travel and things aren't binding. I'm also dropping the lower arm and tie rod 1.25".
×
×
  • Create New...