Backcountry Forum
Backpacking & Hiking Gear

Backcountry Forum
Our long-time Sponsor - the leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear
 
 
 

Amazon.com
Backpacking Forums
---- Our Gear Store ----
The Lightweight Gear Store
 
 WINTER CAMPING 

Shelters
Bivy Bags
Sleeping Bags
Sleeping Pads
Snow Sports
Winter Kitchen

 SNOWSPORTS 

Snowshoes
Avalanche Gear
Skins
Hats, Gloves, & Gaiters
Accessories

 ULTRA-LIGHT 

Ultralight Backpacks
Ultralight Bivy Sacks
Ultralight Shelters
Ultralight Tarps
Ultralight Tents
Ultralight Raingear
Ultralight Stoves & Cookware
Ultralight Down Sleeping Bags
Ultralight Synthetic Sleep Bags
Ultralight Apparel


the Titanium Page
WM Extremelite Sleeping Bags

 CAMPING & HIKING 

Backpacks
Tents
Sleeping Bags
Hydration
Kitchen
Accessories

 CLIMBING 

Ropes & Cordage
Protection & Hardware
Carabiners & Quickdraws
Climbing Packs & Bags
Big Wall
Rescue & Industrial

 MEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 WOMEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 FOOTWEAR 

Men's Footwear
Women's Footwear

 CLEARANCE 

Backpacks
Mens Apparel
Womens Apparel
Climbing
Footwear
Accessories

 BRANDS 

Black Diamond
Granite Gear
La Sportiva
Osprey
Smartwool

 WAYS TO SHOP 

Sale
Clearance
Top Brands
All Brands

 Backpacking Equipment 

Shelters
BackPacks
Sleeping Bags
Water Treatment
Kitchen
Hydration
Climbing


 Backcountry Gear Clearance

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#129574 - 02/26/10 02:47 PM Re: Liability [Re: ringtail]
TomD Offline
Moderator

Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Actually, that is not what the bill will do. What it does in cases where the liable party has no insurance or not enough to cover your expenses and your own carrier picks up the bill for your meds, you collect your damages before the insurer gets reimbursed and if and only if the carrier recovers would the carrier be liable for a portion of the contingent attorney fees.

In California, that is what uninsured motorists coverage does, so this appears to be a statutory application of that concept.

http://www.lawweekonline.com/tag/hb10-1168/
fyi, the article refers to "separation rights" but what it should say is "subgrogation rights."


Edited by TomD (02/26/10 02:54 PM)
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.

Top
#129583 - 02/26/10 04:23 PM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
ringtail Offline
member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 2296
Loc: Colorado Rockies
Tom,

I am not sure that I want to pattern Colorado law after California.

I have known and worked with Pat Boyle for more than 25 years.

The point is that liability and the law in general is more about assuring a steady income to lawyers than it is about justice.

I wonder if HB10-1168 applies to medicare? Doubt it.
_________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Yogi Berra

Top
#129598 - 02/26/10 06:38 PM Re: Liability [Re: ringtail]
skippy Offline
member

Registered: 12/27/09
Posts: 129
Loc: CO
Originally Posted By food
Tom,

I am not sure that I want to pattern Colorado law after California.


Food, well said. The less we emulate CA the better. goodjob

No harm intended to those living in that state, it just seems like that state is a train wreck.

Top
#129610 - 02/26/10 09:51 PM Re: Liability [Re: skippy]
phat Offline
Moderator

Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 4107
Loc: Alberta, Canada
Originally Posted By skippy
[
No harm intended to those living in that state, it just seems like that state is a train wreck.


No, it's not a train wreck, so much as a very important demonstration that democracy doesn't necessarily get you what you need, but gets you what you deserve wink

_________________________
Any fool can be uncomfortable...
My 3 season gear list
Winter list.
Browse my pictures


Top
#129656 - 02/27/10 01:35 PM Re: Liability [Re: phat]
TomD Offline
Moderator

Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Many of California's problems stem from people who want services, but don't want to pay for them.

The law proposed in Colorado is in effect in 36 states, so this idea is not unique to California. The legal fees issue is only one part of the law. It is mainly a subrogation issue.

Insurers don't like the law because it means if you get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, they have to pay your medical expenses under your own policy and they cannot collect from you unless the other side has more coverage than the damages awarded to you. What will happen, most likely is that the insurers will raise their rates to cover the costs.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.

Top
#129663 - 02/27/10 03:26 PM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
phat Offline
Moderator

Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 4107
Loc: Alberta, Canada
Originally Posted By TomD
Many of California's problems stem from people who want services, but don't want to pay for them.


Exactly my point about democracy that gets you what you deserve.
_________________________
Any fool can be uncomfortable...
My 3 season gear list
Winter list.
Browse my pictures


Top
#129714 - 02/28/10 03:29 PM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
billstephenson Offline
Moderator

Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Quote:
Insurers don't like the law because it means if you get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, they have to pay your medical expenses under your own policy and they cannot collect from you unless the other side has more coverage than the damages awarded to you.


Whereas here in Missouri I am required to pay for auto liability insurance on each of my vehicles, even though I can only drive one at a time, and if any bozo that chooses to bounce off of me and then run away doesn't get caught, I get to pay for it all.

This seems bass ackward. Instead of requiring me to insure everyone else, why not require me to insure me?

The same problem still exist, but I should have a lower rate if I don't bounce off anyone in my car, or, very few ever bounce off me and those that have a habit or the recurring misfortune of either should pay more.

_________________________
--

"You want to go where?"



Top
#129773 - 03/01/10 12:28 PM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
ringtail Offline
member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 2296
Loc: Colorado Rockies
Tom,

When the law does not seem to make sense then follow Deep Throat's advice and follow the money.

There has long been liability issues between worker's compensation insurance, health insurance and auto insurance. The difference is that insurance companies rarely enter contingent fee agreements.

It is a question of priorities. The health care provider has already been paid for their services, they are whole. The injured party is my next priority. The insurer that paid the bills is my next priority. Only then should the contingency fee be paid.

Most people believe that tort law should be proportionate responsibility, but it almost always is joint and several liability.


_________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Yogi Berra

Top
#132148 - 04/16/10 01:50 AM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
billk Offline
member

Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 1196
Loc: Portland, Oregon
Originally Posted By TomD


FAIR WARNING:
As all of you should know, we have a strict policy regarding personal attacks on other members. They will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Also, as many of you know, I am an attorney (it's in my profile, for one thing) and I resent anyone making blanket disparaging remarks about me, based on my profession, especially when the person making them does not know me. Anyone who continues to do so after being warned will be banned from the boards.

PS, Don't bother arguing you have free speech rights here, you don't.


Tom, this strikes me as being a bit heavy-handed. The poster didn't make any remark about you personally, he just said something you didn't like. Would you have issued this warning if the remark had been about politicians? Horse campers? Snowmobilers?

Top
#132150 - 04/16/10 02:47 AM Re: Liability [Re: billk]
TomD Offline
Moderator

Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Yes, Bill, I would have said the same thing. One of the things we try to maintain here is a civil dialogue. People can disagree about things vehemently, but when it veers off into personal attacks, even of a general nature, that is where I draw the line.

If people want to post random attacks on entire groups of people, there are plenty of places on the net to do so. I post on a couple of political sites and call out groups of people all the time, but TLB isn't the place for that in my opinion. That may seem hypocritical, but it is a matter of context.

Lawyers don't get very far calling the other side names, even if they deserve it, and often they do. Your job is to make a legal argument, not argue that the other person is a moron; that's not much of an argument.

_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.

Top
#132151 - 04/16/10 02:53 AM Re: Liability [Re: ringtail]
TomD Offline
Moderator

Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Food, California has comparative fault, where fault can be apportioned between all the parties, example-one party was speeding, but the other ran the light.

Joint and several liability means fault can be apportioned, but if one defendant can't pay, the others become liable for the entire amount. That is why you see cities or other state agencies named in accident suits (bad road, poor signage, etc.) because they have the money if the other motorist doesn't.

Is this fair? Not really, but the public policy is that the innocent party shouldn't suffer because one of the liable defendants can't pay the damages.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.

Top
#132175 - 04/16/10 08:43 PM Re: Liability [Re: billk]
skippy Offline
member

Registered: 12/27/09
Posts: 129
Loc: CO
Originally Posted By billk
Originally Posted By TomD


FAIR WARNING:
As all of you should know, we have a strict policy regarding personal attacks on other members. They will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Also, as many of you know, I am an attorney (it's in my profile, for one thing) and I resent anyone making blanket disparaging remarks about me, based on my profession, especially when the person making them does not know me. Anyone who continues to do so after being warned will be banned from the boards.

PS, Don't bother arguing you have free speech rights here, you don't.


Tom, this strikes me as being a bit heavy-handed. The poster didn't make any remark about you personally, he just said something you didn't like. Would you have issued this warning if the remark had been about politicians? Horse campers? Snowmobilers?


I agree, unless agreeing is inappropriate or somehow can be construed as attacking someone, something, or some group. In which case I would like to invoke my right to remain silent. laugh

-Skippy

Top
#132280 - 04/18/10 05:45 PM Re: Liability [Re: TomD]
ringtail Offline
member

Registered: 08/22/02
Posts: 2296
Loc: Colorado Rockies
I am all for the innocent party being made whole. But my definition of innocent is less than 5% at fault, and that includes the family of the injured party.

What I object to is when:

The family of the deceased, who is 60% at fault,
Party C is 30% at fault, but broke, and
Party D is 10% at fault but is the only one with the capacity to pay.

In many states the family can collect the entire damages from Party D. I do not think that is just. The government likes it because most public assistance is means tested and that keeps the family off the public dole. The lawyers like it because they are on a contingency fee.

I think the law should be:
Joint liability does not apply to you unless you are greater than 20% at fault,
Joint liability does not apply if the injured party is more than 20% liable, and
You are not eligible to collect if the incident occurred during commission of a misdemeanor or more serious crime.

Again - when the law does not produce what most people consider a just result then follow the money to find out why.



Edited by food (04/18/10 05:48 PM)
_________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Yogi Berra

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Shout Box

Highest Quality Lightweight Down Sleeping Bags
 
Western Mountaineering Sleeping Bags
 
Lite Gear Talk - Featured Topics
Backcountry Discussion - Featured Topics
Make Your Own Gear - Featured Topics
Featured Photos
Spiderco Chaparral Pocketknife
David & Goliath
Also Testing
Trip Report with Photos
Seven Devils, Idaho
Oat Hill Mine Trail 2012
Dark Canyon - Utah
Who's Online
0 registered (), 180 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Noodles, McCrary, DanyBacky, Rashy Willia, WanderBison
13240 Registered Users
Forum Links
Disclaimer
Policies
Site Links
Backpacking.net
Lightweight Gear Store
Backpacking Book Store
Lightweight Zone
Hiking Essentials

Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:

Backcountry Forum
 

Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!
 
 

Since 1996 - the Original Backcountry Forum
Copyright © The Lightweight Backpacker & BackcountryForum