Who pays when no one is blameworthy?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

In the example in the OP, you had the convergence of an "act of God" (the siezure) and an intentional act (cutting down a tree) that carries with it some inherent risk of accident. Your hurricane/tornado analogies don't fit.

-Arrian

To be fair, that was in response to another comment that equated the cases.

Anything we do has some inherent risk of accident. Are you trying to blame Bob for having a heart attack? If people can't be freed of blame once they have accounted for all reasonable risks, then you'll get some very bizarre consequences.

Let's make the case exactly equivalent. Bob is cutting down the tree safely and a sharp earthquake occurs which causes him to lose his balance. The earthquake by itself isn't enough to harm the tree, but it makes Bob slip and the tree falls on Steve's house. So your view is that Bob has to pay because he's the victim of an earthquake. The earthquake is to blame, not Bob. Bob is in no way culpable.

Take a parallel case. It's no different than if Bob's neighbour Harry had been cleaning a gun which he'd forgotten to check, and it went off and shot Bob in the leg and caused him to slip with the saw which caused the tree to fall on Steve's house. How much do you think Bob would have to pay in this case? Nothing, of course. Harry would have to pay.

Harry is the causal equivalent of the earthquake. If you think Bob is responsible for the tree when he had a heart attack, then you think he's responsible when he was the victim of an earthquake and you think he's responsible when his neighbour shot him by accident. That's absurd.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson

In this scenario bob is definitely liable according to the law as i understand it(and i see people lose cases like this all the time).

If you look at it for any length of time, it becomes apparent that many laws were written by idiots, or were simply written to make sure that someone else other than the state had to pay.

[Arrian]

Are you trying to blame Bob for having a heart attack?

Of course not. It's an accident. The thing is, people are held liable for accidents all the time. And there are varying degrees of fortuity (some things are purely accidental, some are party accidental/party intentional).

You bring up the state. Your solution, I take it, would be to have the state pay for the damage. I'm not going to argue that, really. Insurance could be state-run instead of private. I would have some concern about how well the gummint would run things, but then private insurers screw up plenty too. Ultimately, the state would have to collect money (premium -> taxes), set reserves, and pay claims. Just like the insurance industry does now. The difference would be that, assuming the state insurance was funded via income tax, the system would be progressive.

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

I think the law would vary by the state - some have partial responsibility, some don't. I know this is true for vehicular accidents, but I don't know about torts in general.

If partial responsibility is in effect, I could see some responsibility going to 'God'. Some would still be to Bob, however (the decision to cut the tree down knowing there was a small chance it would fall in his neighbor's yard). You are responsible for your actions, not your ability; if I am a capable whatever and know how to do something properly, but don't do it properly (for whatever reason), I am still at fault.

In a non-partial responsibility jurisdiction, I would think Bob would be entirely responsible. His action (cutting down the tree) directly led to the damage.

[Krill]

What type of seizure?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Of course not. It's an accident. The thing is, people are held liable for accidents all the time. And there are varying degrees of fortuity (some things are purely accidental, some are party accidental/party intentional).

People shouldn't be blamed for things that are wholly accidental. It's completely irrational to do so.

We blame people for intentional wrongdoing or negligence because these things have negative consequences and we apply sanctions so that people won't do them and thus we decrease the likelihood of the negative consequences occurring.

Blaming people for wholly accidental consequences serves no such function, because these things are completely beyond their control. It's like random punishment. Imagine if there was a compulsory lottery every week and the "winners" (i.e. the losers) had to burn $1000 of their property for no reason at all. Such an institution would be viewed as perverse, yet our attitude towards blame for accidents is similarly absurd.

You bring up the state. Your solution, I take it, would be to have the state pay for the damage.

Not necessarily. The person who should pay in the original case is Steve, or more precisely Steve's insurance company. Steve has effectively been the victim of a random accident, and we have insurance in large part to pool such risks. Of course you could look at it the other way and say that Bob and everyone else should have liability insurance to cover accidents they might be involved in which cause damage to others. The problem is that it is easier for people to judge the value of the insurance they pay on their own property than it is for people to know how much insurance to buy when they might be involved in an accident that causes $10 damage or $10,000,000 damage. It's a lot easier to manage "Steve" insurance than "Bob" insurance.

Either way, when it comes to accidents, there is no blame, and thus no point in having any one member of the community pay more than any other. The moral of this story is that insurance should be compulsory such that we all pool our risks in the case of accidents. So the proper way to think of it is, I think, this: Steve has been the victim of an accident, so everyone should pay to have his house rebuilt. That's because Steve has paid in to the insurance fund that we all pay in to in order to pool our risk. We keep our promise to him by rebuilding his house, and we all benefit by knowing that the promise will be kept if we were to be the victims.

[Arrian]

The thing is, our current system comes pretty close to doing that, Agathon.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Why shouldn't Bob pay? Cutting down a tree with a chain-saw is an inherently high risk activity, especially in a residential neighborhood. This shouldn't even be a big deal - Bob pays, period. He can cry about it not being his fault, but I guess the lesson learned is to shift liability by having a 3rd party do it next time.

If I have a heart attack while driving, should I (or my insurance) not be responsible if I hit a parked car, for example?

David Floyd's post in very insightful.

Normally, to hold Bob liable, he would have had to have acted negligently. We had a case in one of my courtrooms, in which a driver had an epileptic seizure (he had no history of epilepsy) and smashed into someone else's car. The decision: no negligent conduct = no liablity, And the innocent driver of the other car had to bear his own expenses.

There is a situation called "untrahazardous activity" when the actor is liable even without negligence. Examples are keeping a wild animal (e.g. tiger) or storing explosives. In these instances, if the activity causes an injury -- even if there's no neligence -- the actor is liable.

I do not know if using a chain saw has ever been held in a court of law to be an ultrahazardous activity. My best guess is that it is.

[Ecthy]

some prophet on the issue of "blame"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_i7vpGNlLc&feature=related

[SpencerH]

I was partially wrong about liability with my lightning hitting the tree analogy. If the tree is well maintained and healthy when hit by lightning (an act of god), falls and does damage, then the treeowner is not negligent and not liable! If the treeowner could reasonably have anticipated the damage from an act of god then there is an element of negligence and liability.

So in this case the question is whether Bob was negligent in that he attempted to cut down the tree himself. I wouldnt try to cut down a large tree despite that I have a chainsaw and a bagfull of large trees on my property (some of which I'd like to see gone). Unless Bob was a professional lumberjack I'd say it wasnt reasonable for Bob to attempt to cut down the tree therefore Bob was negligent and liable.

[McCrea]

Oh, I think Bob could have easily rigged lines or a temporary structure to ensure the tree fell on his property, even if he had no intention of cutting it down. Why isn't that already a law? We'd have some government revenue from fines. Every home-owner should go out, today, and restore order to all these chaotic property line trees that ever dare fall where they may! Proactivity is vital! Act or be acted upon! If you cannot even tame a tree, you are a bane to all mankind.