Рефераты → Иностранный язык → As → Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame

Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame

Assumption Of Risk: Who Is To Blame For Our Actions Essay, Research Paper


Assumption of Risk: Who is to Blame For Our Actions


The doctrine of “assumption of risk” clearly defines the responsibility


of all voluntary actions taken on by individuals, independent of the inherent


risk or danger involved with such actions. Are we only to assume responsibility


for the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negative


outcomes as well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in which


they are fully responsible for their actions. Living within a country which


houses a large amount of private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying on


outside help. In many occasions we, the individual seeking assistance, hold the


power to choose which avenue of help will be taken. In these cases in which we


have the choice, should we not also be held responsible for the outcomes of our


decisions, especially in cases in which we have been pre-warned about any


inherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to drive


on a private road, smoke cigarettes, work for a mining company, or fly on a


discount airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to take


responsibility for any outcome these actions may hold? The “assumption of risk”


doctrine seems to ignore the fundamental obligation of entities to ensure their


natural goals. The distinguishing factor in deciding responsibility in


faultless cases which call on the “assumption of risk” doctrine is the control


held by individuals after the situation has begun. In accordance, companies


such as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on the


responsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to work


in a mine or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of their


actions to do so.


All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customers


from a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person who


agrees to buy a discount airline ticket, which warns to “fly at your own risk,”


is entitled to receive the minimum service of transportation provided by the


airline. The individual traveler should assume no other benefits other than


transportation. The airline company claims this act of transportation to be its


goal of services rendered. Independent of difficulties which may arise in


completing this goal, the airline may not alter the basic duty which it is


contractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented to perform


this basic duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an accepted


payment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all control


over their safety to the accepting airline which holds the minimum


responsibility of returning the individual back to a state of safety once their


duty is complete. The mere nature of airplane transportation forces the


individual to render total control over themselves to the airline. This


transfer of control holds the airline responsible for any action which may occur


due to the obvious lack of responsibility in the hands of the individual. Once


the plane has closed the cabin they withhold all control of an individual over


themselves, and must grant the service promised. The individual may demand the


right to existence and hold the company liable once they hold the power to


dictate all aspects of the situation.


One problem which arises within the situation is that of something


happening which the airline holds no control over. Any difficulties which arise


due to the daily routine of the airplane fall under the responsibility of the


airline. Even occurrences which are deemed unavoidable fall under the


responsibility of the airline because they hold total responsibility of their


clients once the cabin is closed. Due to the complete control the airline holds


on the situation it may be assumed that the doctrine of “assumption of risk”


applies solely to the airline. In creating a situation in which the individual


must give up his/her right to self-substinance the airline holds full


responsibility for any actions taken which may effect the safety of its


passengers. Anytime the airline engages in profit making acts, such as cutting


costs, they increase the risk upon themselves in return for extra monetary


benefits.


Some may argue that some responsibility falls on the consumer due to the


warning which the airline provided prior to the purchase of the tickets. This


argument revolves around the assumption that the individual becomes responsible


due to their decision to buy a discounted ticket over the full price. Having


been previously warned about the risk involved, the individual is expected to


relieve the airline of responsibility for any mishaps which may occur. This


idea of responsibility may hold true if, and only if, the participant holds some


control over their well-being once inside the cabin of the airplane. There is


no controversy over the fact that the individual willingly accepted the


discounted rate and received a warning, but the airline still holds the


responsibility of earning its payment by completing the minimal requirement of


transportation. The prior warning only holds precedence over the individuals


ability to choose an airline which may either claim responsibility for numerous


actions, such as transportation, food, and entertainment, or act as the discount


airline and only claim responsibility for the transportation. The warning holds


no validity once the individual has lost control over their well being.


In continuing with the theory that the provider of a service holds the


minimum obligation to produce their product; the situation which arises in the


case of cigarette companies tends to raise several questions. If it is correct


that they provide a good which is legal under present law, how can they be held


responsible in any way? In following with the statement above, the cigarette


company holds a minimum obligation to the individual to produce a “safe”


cigarette. The meaning of safe in this context is meant to imply that the


cigarette will meet the safety requirements set by the government so that


individuals are not killed by a single cigarette. This act of producing “safe”


cigarettes for individuals covers the minimum obligation of the company to the


/>

individual. In this case, any additional concerns or problems which the user


may have as a result of the product becomes the responsibility of the cigarette


addict. The cigarette company seemingly performs more than the minimum


obligation by also providing a product which fills the crave of addiction.


Continued use of this addictive product may lead to detrimental health and lung


disease. Cigarette companies attempt to protect themselves from such issues by


warning users of the inherent dangers and therefore eliminating their


responsibility for the result. After all, the individual must only notice the


risk and discontinue the use of cigarettes to reduce the risk of illness.


Therefore, it seems that the company holds no problems since they provide the


product and clearly state the risks of use. In this case it becomes the


individual’s responsibility to accept the risk and suffer the consequences.


A large problem arises in the addictive nature of the cigarette to seize


control over the actions of the individual user. Although the product


acknowledges its addictive quality, the addiction still continues to seize


complete control over the situation of cigarette smoking. The user becomes


chemically dependent on the product and becomes unable to avoid the risks


associated. As in the airplane case, the cigarette company gains control over


the individual and is therefore forced to share responsibility for their actions.


By outwardly admitting the problem at hand, the cigarette company must handle


the consequences. It seems logical that the company could restrict blame solely


to the user, due to the self-inflictive nature of the problem. The problem lies


in the fact that as the cigarette company admits to the addictive nature of


their product, they emphasize the fact that they have seized control of the


situation. Taking control of the situation forces the company to take


responsibility for the outcome produced. Cigarettes are intended to be


addictive in order to increase sales. Thus, if the company shares in the awards


of the addiction, they should consequently share in the damages as well.


A case which differs, due the control of the individual over their


actions, is that of the mining industry. The only problem for the company is


that of the moral dilemma accepted by the company’s executives. When we look at


the case from a distance it seems to be similar to that of the cigarette


industry, but the difference lies in the non-addictive nature of mining.


Although the company acknowledges the dangers of working in the mines, it is the


decision of the workers to accept the risk or find less hazardous job. The


individual holds the power to work in the mine or not. Unlike smoking, the mine


holds no addictive qualities which force the workers to stay. The worker


assumes full responsibility for his/her actions due to the choice to work in a


hazardous area. Since the company never gains control over the worker, the


worker stays in full control of the situation given the apparent risks involved.


The only instance in which the mining company gains some power over the


individual is in the case of monetary concerns. If the individual can only


obtain work at the mine and relies upon the income produced, it seems clear that


the company then holds some power over the individual. Although, this power is


limited by the mind set of the individual to determine the actual importance of


monetary gains. Since the mine holds no addictive quality which forces the


individual to work, the worker holds a free mind to decide what qualities of


life are most important. This freedom to decide releases the company from


responsibility of any problems which may arise as a result of the mine work, and


places all burden on the individual.


Some may argue that the mining company holds some responsibility over


the well-being of its employees. These beliefs support the idea that the


company should provide the greatest amount of safety precautions for their


workers. This can be witnessed through the use of safety equipment, medical aid,


and protective gear. Since the company has already warned about the risks, it


becomes the burden of the individual to purchase these items for themselves.


The company only holds the obligations to inform the workers of such available


equipment. If the workers feel this is unfair they may quit working and


possibly force employers to engage in such safety precautions. The


responsibility of providing payment for work is the only act which must be taken


on by the employer after they have given the warnings about the dangers of


mining. The rest of the responsibility lies in the hands of the miners who hold


the power to decide where they work.


The final case regarding responsibility of actions lies on a private


road which warns individuals of falling rocks. The sign posted at the beginning


of the road clearly states any dangers and makes the reader aware of the


apparent risks. The fundamental obligation of the road is similar to that of


the airplane in that it must provide a means for transportation from point A to


point B. However, the road differs from the plane in that the person driving is


in control of the situation at all times, and never gives up control over their


actions. The speed of travel, length of stay on the road, and the decision to


travel on the road are all decisions made by the individual and have a direct


effect on the safety of the individual. In this case the driver becomes


responsible for his actions on the road. The owner of the road met the


requirements set upon him by providing means of transport and warning of any


danger; all other responsibility lies in the able hands of the individual


driving the automobile.


The responsibility of any given action remains in the hands of those in


control of the action at any given time. As seen in the airplane and cigarette


examples, proper warning does not warrant lack of responsibility if the


individual holds no control over the outcome of the action. The mining company


and private road examples show how responsibility lies in the hands of the


individual as long as control over the situation is also controlled by the


individual. It is clear to see that responsibility for any given action remains


in the hands of those who hold control over the situation.
Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame

Слов:2253
Символов:14998
Размер:29.29 Кб.