Why does the existence or availability of liability insurance justify abolishing parent-child immunity? Why does insurance factor in at all? Either one is responsible or one is not. Either one is immune from liability or one is not. Yet courts use this benchmark in determining liability and even duty of care routinely.
"Immunity fosters neglect and irresponsibility. Liability promotes care and caution." (Abernathy v Sisters of St Mary's, 446 S.W.2d 599) This Missouri court went on to say that the existence of liability insurance does not create liability where none exists. But it would seem that in today's world, it does.
Strangely, with the tendency to consider the availability of insurance in determining liability or scope of it, the courts have given increased power to insurance companies, and their lobbies. If one has so much to lose, then they will either become a force in the field of play or they will die a quiet death. The insurance industry has the funds to establish and maintain strong lobbying efforts. Additionally, if there is insurance available and one does not avail oneself of the use of it, then there is no quarter given at bar. But which begat which? Was there liability and therefore insurance? Or insurance, and therefore liability?
Perhaps there is a better way to manage the harm that results from our human condition. Meanwhile, I drive more cautiously than I used to, and I step over the cracks in the sidewalk. I invite you to do the same, especially when you are on my property.
No comments:
Post a Comment