The Last Outpost Forums ( http://www.thelastoutpost.co.uk/forums/ )Outbreak Of Common Sense

Source: http://www.thelastoutpost.co.uk/forums/index.php?gettopic=110

cyke | December 18, 2005 at 04:00 PM

From http://www.time...1936975,00.html


SMOKERS are legally responsible for their own ill-health because of their negligence in failing to give up,
the High Court ruled yesterday.

In a groundbreaking decision, a judge said that those who had smoked since 1971 were guilty of risking their own health because of the clear evidence that had emerged since then about the dangers posed by tobacco.

Lawyers gave warning last night that the decision could also hit compensation claims for ill-health made by other groups, such as heavy drinkers and obese people.

The court’s ruling came as a study published yesterday showed that, for the first time, more women now smoke than men. The Health Survey for England disclosed that 22 per cent of men smoke compared with 23 per cent of women.

Overall numbers for both genders fell but the proportion of men giving up was twice as high as that for women.

Smoking was declared a form of negligence by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton as he ruled on a claim for asbestos-related lung cancer made against the Ministry of Defence. The judge concluded that while Reginald Badger’s widow, Beryl, was entitled to compensation for his death the award should be cut by 20 per cent because as a heavy smoker he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Mr Badger had been exposed to asbestos while working as a boilermaker in Gibraltar and at Devonport dockyard from 1954 to 1987. He had been a smoker since the age of 16.

Mr Justice Burnton said that no one could blame Mr Badger, who died aged 63, for starting to smoke in 1955 because at the time the risks were not widely known. From 1971, however, he said that the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packets enabled him to infer that the public were aware of the hazards of smoking. Lawyers, including the judge, said that the ruling was the first in the High Court to consider the contributory effect of tobacco in negligence claims and would affect similar cases.

The ruling has been seen as a victory for insurance companies that have fought to try to reduce the cash payouts they have to make to victims of negligence.

But Adrian Budgen, a personal injury specialist at the solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said: “It’s an unhelpful precedent. It will result in greatly reduced damages in a lot of cases. That’s very sad and unfortunate.”

FullAuto | December 18, 2005 at 04:34 PM

That's the sort of thing it's nice to see. People being made to take responsibility for their actions.

cyke | December 18, 2005 at 07:23 PM

My favourite bit was


Lawyers gave warning last night that the decision could also hit compensation claims for ill-health made by other groups, such as heavy drinkers and obese people.

FullAuto | December 18, 2005 at 08:22 PM

I dunno, I've never heard 'ambulance chaser' made to sound as grand before.

personal injury specialist

Pete | December 19, 2005 at 07:42 AM

They're certainly special alright...

FullAuto | December 19, 2005 at 10:23 AM

Aye, special needs.

Ivory | December 19, 2005 at 07:30 PM

id take offence, but you woudlnt listen anyhow!

FullAuto | December 19, 2005 at 07:40 PM

Take offence at what?

Pete | December 19, 2005 at 07:58 PM

The use of the word "needs" and "special" in a rearranged order I guess.

To be fair though, special needs covers a lot nowadays rather than mere physical or mental disability (as it did even when I was at high school), and struggling to grasp concepts such as right and wrong is covered by this phrase.

Ergo these "ambulance chasers" are indeed special, as are many other professions where folks such as these go against what they know is right in the quest for a quick buck.

FullAuto | December 19, 2005 at 08:02 PM

I don't understand why that's offensive, but I still use rather a lot of un-PC terms, so that was quite toned down for me.

Ivory | December 19, 2005 at 08:07 PM

i know

FullAuto | December 19, 2005 at 08:10 PM

Well perhaps you should reserve offence for when I use terms like mong, scopie and spacker, then? I didn't think SN was an offensive term?

Ivory | December 19, 2005 at 08:44 PM

often it is the tone and context of what we say rather than the term we use. ignor me, shoudlnt of replyed at all, did it on impulse.

FullAuto | December 19, 2005 at 08:53 PM

Sorry. Comparing ambulance chasers to the disabled was wrong of me. The disabled are not evil.

Ivory | December 19, 2005 at 08:55 PM

those with special needs, or imparements are as individual as you and I ...and it is quite likely that there are alot of evil indivduals in this world

FullAuto | December 20, 2005 at 01:51 PM

Oh, ok, fair enough. The disabled are evil then.

Pete | December 20, 2005 at 05:13 PM

Glad it wasn't just you making that connection.

Well, I'm sure there are some evil disabled individuals out there too. Now... how the hell did we get onto this subject?

Ivory | December 20, 2005 at 05:45 PM

my point was that there are individuals who are evil, and individuals who are not. and they maybe impared, or have specail needs, or they may not have any registered imparement or specail needs.

i HAVE NO IDEA- you two started it

Pete | December 20, 2005 at 06:02 PM

Wheeeeeeeeeee! This is a fun ride

I believe it was a major court case about smokers being responsible for their own ill health. There we go, back on track now

Ivory | December 20, 2005 at 08:03 PM

well theya re! and if they want the RIGHT to smoke they shoudl take the RESPONSIBILTY for their own health...or lack there of!

TopSource: http://www.thelastoutpost.co.uk/forums/index.php?gettopic=110