fledermaus

I'm a UK trained radiographer working as an xray tech.

You will get liability insurance from the Provincial Professional body. In Ontario it's the OAMRT and CAMRT. CAMRT is the national one that oversees the certification exam.

Your liability here is the same as in the UK. ie, Work within your job description and follow written procedures then if you make a mistake, that's what it is and you aren't liable. If you are careless, or negligent, or act outside of these bounds then you are responsible.

MRT's have much less autonomy here. I can't imagine a situation where you would be self employed, unless you owned the clinic. As a radiographer/MRT patient's aren't referred to you, they are referred to the radiologist for an opinion and imaging. We are the means to obtain the images. In the UK a consultant radiographer would have patients referred to them, and so perhaps could be self employed as part of a private practice.
I don't see what self employment has to do with radiation.

I don't recall patients in the UK talking about suing so it can't have happened often. I don't recall it happening here. I haven't noticed a huge blame culture at all.

Almost Canadian

OK, I can see I am banging my head against an immovable object.

As I am sure you are aware, each side will have their expert so hired guns, lacking credibility, will not add much to their side's position.

In your latter example, one's actions are criminal, both may be negligent if both are not driving appropriately. One could argue that the loss of a vehicle (which is likely to be insured) is not worth the risk on causing bodily injury to an innocent onlooker. It's a fine line. I know, but a line all the same.

I, for one, would not condone allowing police officers carte blanche to drive vehicles at high speed without restriction and, as somebody that has taken the advanced driving course that a large number of police officers take, I feel qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

Tangram

I love it when people say " I don't want to argue " or " I don't want to get into a slanging match " then proceed to try and get the last word in !!??!?!

fledermaus

I love it too, but wouldn't go on and on about it.


PS, I think Almost Canadian is right. Spot on in fact.

Lady Locket

I am fascinated that this topic has taken such a different turn on the boards than when my husband and I were talking about it. We weren't looking a specifics so much, and certainly not about his position as a radiographer, but more about the society and cultural effects of such litigation. Our conversation was sparked by two things: one, a news article on how claims against government bodies, local councils and individuals have increased by about 40% during the recession; and two, a friend of ours in America who has just had a case brought against him.

Many of the cases brought up during the recession are proving to be fraudulent (a man who broke his ankle playing football, but claimed it was due to a pothole and sued the council), but even fraudulent cases cost time and money, and can be quite distressing for those involved during investigation. Generally cases have increased because people see a way of making money in a time of hardship, even if previously they would not have claimed. Of course, let me make it clear, I am not denouncing people who bring up legimate cases of negligence - that is their right to do so - I am just highlighting the fact that many cases are a 'bit of a stretch' on the old blame game.

Our friend in America had an interesting experience when his daughter invited over some friends to play. One of the girls fell and hurt her leg. Whilst the parents did not appear overly aggressive, they did none the less finish the conversation with our friend as 'Of course, you will be hearing from our lawyer before the end of the week. We will be suing.' The casual attitude shocked our friend, especially as there was no case of assault and in his (and our) minds, no case of negligence. All children fall down and hurt themselves occasionally, it's an important part of being a child - one that teaches consequence, risk and limitation. It was just an accident, and no-one's fault. I understand that in America, unlike England, all medical bills are paid at the time and therefore the family in question may simply be suing to cover any medical costs incurred - but still, it got us talking.

The main points we talked about were how these cases affect the relationships with have with others in our community; firstly in Bystander Apathy (something I studied in psychology). This situation means that we are less likely to assist someone in need, due to fear of negative recrimination or the assumption that someone else will do it and you don't have to. As a person who has been a first respondant in some fairly serious cases, and had to hold the fort until medical professionals can arrive, I am quite proud of the fact that I have helped people. I like the fact that my first instinct is to do what I can to help - and I certainly do not want to be the kind of person that hesitates (or refuses to help at all) because I fear that a case may be brought against me. At this time, there is no effective 'Good Samaritan Defence' and we are seeing more and more cases brought against members of the public who are not trained medical professionals. This means that we are seeing more cases of people 'rubbernecking' but not assisting, which is quite scary. I would like to think that if I were in need, someone would help me. It creates a falseness in society where we are friendly and pleasant to people generally, but where we would not wish to get involved in a crisis - 'just in case'. Personally I enjoy having neighbours I can rely on!

Secondly, these attitudes affect the way we work and play with others. There is a pervasive 'knee-jerk' reaction to being sued that means many rergulations are brought into place afterwards that appear to be an overreaction. Regulations are brought in to protect the company/individual from ever being sued again, but they can be quite silly. Some schools have cut down trees and limited play areas because of children hurting themselves in the playground - meaning kids have nothing interesting to play on or around. What will they do next? Rip up the concrete/tarmac when children graze their knees? Put back the trees they took away when a child suffers with heatstroke due to lack of shade? We should accept that some things just happen, and its all a part of life. Its hard enough to work as a teacher without all these additional regulations, and really, our children should be allowed to play - there is no point wrapping them up in cotton wool, life as an adult will seem twice as scary! My Health and Safety department have gone so regulation concious thanks to one woman, that I am no longer allowed to change a blown lightbulb!

There are a lot of other issues we discussed (quick fix mentality, self vs social responsibility, financial implications... etc), but I have suddenly realised that I have waffled quite a bit.... sorry!

If you have managed to read this far without falling asleep (!), I would love to hear your thoughts and feelings on social consequences of litigation cases, and the practical needs vs the impractical reactions of such cases....

I am sure there is a book to be written on this subject!
LL

dbd33

I think Canada leads the world in this regard. Dithering and over-regulating are the defining traits of government, at least in Ontario.

I was fined $52 some fifteen years ago for kicking a football around with friends on a football pitch no one else was using. The pitch was in a public park and we did not have a public liability policy covering our activity. In correspondence with Parks and Rec I discovered that no physical activity in parks is allowed unless an indemnity is in place. (This is widely ignored but then so are very many laws in Ontario, some are passed with the specific comment that they won't be enforced).

On the topic of individual attitudes to accidents and injuries I think will depend on the place of origin of the people; they will tend to hold the attitudes that were prevalent wherever they grew up. If they're unhyphenated then they grew up in an American culture and are no different from Americans.

I think, btw, that Toronto is a markedly more sexist place than London and that colours even interventions in accidents and the like. By way of example, my daughter, a lifeguard and a nurse, was constrained from coming to the aid of a fallen passenger on a tram by the crowd because, she assumes, she looks more like a porno nurse than a real one. Similarly, I stood in the street in Toronto while a drunken woman belted me over the head repeatedly with a variety of objects including an umbrella, the police were called and I was taken into custody while my assailant was sent on her merry way. What we have in Toronto is not Bystander Apathy but Bystander Stereotyping; the Asians on the tram couldn't deal with a white woman in stilletos being a nurse and the redneck cops couldn't catch the idea of a woman attacking a man.

Almost Canadian

Most of what you have stated above results from people thinking they know what the law says, rather than what the law actually says. No criticism is aimed at you

If you are trained in first aid, are competent, provide first aid to someone in need and do so competently, no court in any common law jurisdiction is going to find you negligent.

Schools in England have gone way over board with their "minimizing risk" culture. In England I acted regularly for policy holders of Royal & SunAlliance. A number of these were schools that had been sued when children had been injured whilst in their care. Without exception, the only times a school was found to have been negligent related to when they had incompetent staff supervising children inappropriately (for example, a teacher that kayaked once in a blue moon, thinking he had the ability to supervise 20 kids on the River Dart in Cornwall during storm season). I had lots of cases dismissed that had been brought against schools in situations you described above. Invariably, the judges took the view that life is risky and that children cannot be wrapped in cotton wool.

I remember the English papers being full of reports that a head teacher in an English school had stopped children playing conkers due to risk of injury. If a child was injured in such a way and attempted to sue the school, on those facts, it would be thrown out by the Court.

Too many people "think" they know what is likely to happen inside a courtroom without ever having stepped inside one. It's a bit like the old adage that, "You are not allowed to fly a St. George's cross in England" I have yet to see any legal authority for such a proposition.

Souvenir

A building contractor asked me a while back if he could use my mitre saw (he'd forgotten his). I wouldn't let him because I'd removed the guard on the blade.

dbd33

Awareness of exposure to litigation is common where we are:

Our neighbour has a huge tractor and chains. He carries a pad of waivers and requires that people who want rescuing from the ditch attach the chains to their vehicle themselves.

When we moved to the country we were contacted by the lawyers for the absentee owner of 100 acres of woodland on our street, the message was friendly, we were welcome to ride horse on her land, but please to sign and return the attached waiver.

Souvenir

That kind of thing has been around for a long time, even in the UK. I remember being in a pub about 20 years ago when a bloke had some sort of turn. One of our party was an off-duty nurse. She didn't dare go near him because she was 'so liable'. That's a rather sad state of affairs.

Lady Locket

In my shop I used to have a little notice saying 'lovely to look at, great to hold, but if you break it, consider it sold!'. So in the spirit of ass-covering waivers I have devised one for use at the family home:

Litigation Rhyme

"Welcome to our home and grounds,
We do hope you have a wonderful time...
But if for some reason you don't,
Please remember the liability is not mine!"

I shall start production immediately, in various fonts, colours, formats and frames, suitable for all budgets. Look out for them in a store near you!



Lady Locket - Soon to be millionaire owner of comedic liability wavers everywhere.

Souvenir

That doesn't rhyme. I may sue you for mis-representation.

dbd33

It's not uncommon to be asked to sign such a thing when visiting people in the country, our insurance broker suggested that we might want to have something of the sort.

Lady Locket

My case is prepared:
The word "Rhyme" can be used in a specific and a general sense. In the specific sense, two words rhyme if their final stressed vowel and all following sounds are identical; two lines of poetry rhyme if their final strong positions are filled with rhyming words. In the general sense, "rhyme" can refer to various kinds of phonetic similarity between words, and to the use of such similar-sounding words in organizing verse.