I started diving off of starting blocks when I was eight years old. I am now 51, and train at the Y, almost always alone, as there is no Masters program in the county where I live, or in any of the immediately adjacent counties. (There are several age group programs.) I want to work on my starts, but none of the Y's where I swim will let me use the blocks - saying that a national Y policy prohibits anyone from using the blocks unless a team/club coach is on the deck.
I have never heard of anyone suing a YMCA because of an accident on a starting block.
Yes, perhaps a coach would be valuable to me in this regard, but I'm not looking for a coach - I need and want a cooperative facility. The age groups' program schedules are not conducive to my schedule, and besides, the age group coaches already have enough on their hands during those times with lanes full of kids working their programs. I also am not excited about having to dodge those kids to do the work I need to do.
Anyone find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you.
Parents
Former Member
Spilled coffee sounds aquatic related to me.
'over 190 degrees' is pretty damn close to 212 degrees, as hot as the water can get.
If I were selling a product I would be very concerned about accidents that can occur during ordinary use. That is why products have safety features. I would also be aware of what people who buy the product expect from the product. If I am selling coffee at a drive through, I know that drivers, with their attention on something else besides the coffee (like driving) are not expecting scalding hot coffee. I also know that spills will occur. And, if I have been repeatedly told that people have been hurt by my unusually hot coffee, I would understand that scalding hot coffee, cars, and reasonable spillage are a combination that damages people. I would stop selling very hot coffee -- not because the spillage is my fault, but because I am a good citizen and do not want other people to be hurt. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, especially if I sold several hundred thousand cups of coffee a day.
Insurance companies do not make most of their money by taking in more premiums than claims they pay out - instead they invest the premiums and get a return from their large amount (a necessary amount if they need to pay more than they expect) of reserves. If the return on the investments decline, they will make less money and have to answer to their share holders. Thus, when the returns on stocks and bonds decrease, they are forced to raise their premiums to make it up.
This is their right in a competitive market and perfectly reasonable. What is not right is to blame rate increases on the politically acceptable target of trial lawyers. There is *far* more correlation between malpractice insurance rates and bond prices than between malpractice insurance rates and the net cost of trial judgements.
Spilled coffee sounds aquatic related to me.
'over 190 degrees' is pretty damn close to 212 degrees, as hot as the water can get.
If I were selling a product I would be very concerned about accidents that can occur during ordinary use. That is why products have safety features. I would also be aware of what people who buy the product expect from the product. If I am selling coffee at a drive through, I know that drivers, with their attention on something else besides the coffee (like driving) are not expecting scalding hot coffee. I also know that spills will occur. And, if I have been repeatedly told that people have been hurt by my unusually hot coffee, I would understand that scalding hot coffee, cars, and reasonable spillage are a combination that damages people. I would stop selling very hot coffee -- not because the spillage is my fault, but because I am a good citizen and do not want other people to be hurt. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, especially if I sold several hundred thousand cups of coffee a day.
Insurance companies do not make most of their money by taking in more premiums than claims they pay out - instead they invest the premiums and get a return from their large amount (a necessary amount if they need to pay more than they expect) of reserves. If the return on the investments decline, they will make less money and have to answer to their share holders. Thus, when the returns on stocks and bonds decrease, they are forced to raise their premiums to make it up.
This is their right in a competitive market and perfectly reasonable. What is not right is to blame rate increases on the politically acceptable target of trial lawyers. There is *far* more correlation between malpractice insurance rates and bond prices than between malpractice insurance rates and the net cost of trial judgements.
