-
Australian Sign Makers Nightmare :(
Inline with our Governments view that there is no such thing as an accident – someone must accept blame – I’ve been informed of something today that does actually worry me.
It turns out that if I design a sign, say… on the side of a busy road… and in the late afternoon… the sun reflects off the sign I designed (I need not be the one that installed it), and blinds a motorist with the reflection…. and he has an accident…. the driver can sue me…. and I’ll likely lose the case. If the driver dies, I’m up for involuntary manslaughter.
If this were to happen, and it would be a stretch to my mind, but if it were to happen and I did design the sign that caused a driver to crash, I assumed I would be covered by my public liability insurance.
Not so apparently.
The Government has made it law within the Work Place Health and Safety legislation, meaning that instead of being an accident, and thus covered by my Public Liability insurance, it is now a case that I broke the law, and my insurance will no longer cover the claim.
It is treated as the same thing as drink driving. Because you have broken the law, your insurance is void.
Architects and Draftsmen are in the same boat.
Lets say they design a building and put in 12v lighting. If, 10 years down the line, someone falls off a ladder while changing the light, they can argue the light was in an unsafe position, because if it was in a safe position they would not have fallen of the ladder in the first place, the designer is liable. He has broken the law.
If he puts an air conditioning vent in a ceiling too close to a door, and someone is up a ladder cleaning the vent when someone comes through the door, knocking that person on the ladder off his perch, they can sue the designer because the design did not take into account that scenario happening.
Its madness.
The new laws here do not accept something may have been an accident. Someone is always to blame.
It is a litigation nightmare in the making. Can’t help think the laws were devised by lawyers to keep their colleagues in work 😕
rant over 😥
-
11 Replies
-
Welcome to the 21st century Shane.
Thank heaven for limited liability companies.
-
First America, now Australia!!
We are slowly legislating ourselves into a corner!!
By the way, Shane, If you were to export your killer signs to, lets say, Namibia, what will you charge? Do I get discount if I order more than a hundred?? Do you have to install, or are they guaranteed effective, no matter what the level of incompetence of the rigger (i.e. will they still be guaranteed as lethal killer signs if I install myself)
Maybe I should get a patent these killer signs, then I can sell ’em to the Americans to use in the war in Iraq. Maybe, just maybe, it can tip the balance in their favour!!
-
Sorry for posting back to back, but please consider this scenario:
A hard working Australian signwriter works his behind off all year to make deadlines, make ends meet, pay mortage, pay the hp contract on the new digital printer etc. Handing in his annual Tax Return, he mistakenly believes he is in the clear with the Receiver of Revenue, only to get nabbed for an additional Aus$ 8000-00 in taxes. Our sign pal, being overworked and all, suffers a mild heart attack due to the shock of this news, and is told to take it easy by his GP. Taking it easy means earning less money, so our hero friend now sues the government, because they were supposed to know it could give somebody a heart attack, and should have planned accordingly…
-
I like it Gert.
Go for it Shane. 😀
-
it IS getting ridiculous Shane… however… i think this sort of CRAP should be enforced in certain areas of our trade. Health and safety signs and traffic signs "i think" should hold liability "in some ways" not just as you have said of course 😕 :lol1: but in some ways as a deterrent to prevent joe bloggs easily getting into this line of work. this will also prevent the "buyers" of the signs shopping round the cowboys, because at some stage, the Buyer should/must also be considered liable for NOT buying from a reputable source when it is his job to source the signage to prevent the accident in the first place. the outcome of this would be that those sign makers making the health and safety signs and traffic signs can demand a higher fee for their experience etc…
this is only a small portion of our trade but its a beginning… if done "realistically" there could be more money in it for us as qualified sign makers as opposed to the blackpool pleasure beach type signage we see on our high streets every day. 🙄by the way i am not agreeing with what they have done :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: i just mean there could be some good comes from this line of thinking for us all. 😀
-
I’ve calmed down now….. for now….
I know what you say Rob, but they could police this by having a licensed sign shop, through our own sign association, like they do for government work now. They have to offer training though, which would cost money… effectively yet another tax on business….
Thing is, why should I be held responsible for someones else’s lack of care? Even the architect… you can’t possibly be expected to think and/or cover yourself from every idiots lack of intelligence.
Nothing is fool proof after all, there always seems to be a better fool come along when you think you’ve seen everything 😕
I like your thinking tho Gert. Trouble is they could argue that a heart attack is no accident, but a health condition. I could see them turning it around that your heart attack was caused by your own lack of ‘self care’. They could end up suing me too 😮
Only people to win are the legal people and the insurance companies.
A mate of mine was accused by his ex mother in law of mistreating his children, and she sought custody (his wife – her daughter tragically died 6 months after the birth of their 3rd child, and the mother could not come to terms with it). My mate is a fantastic father, and the claim was totally false. But it took him nearly $100,000 to clear his name. No justice in that either. But that’s another thread.
It seems like the victims are the innocent now. Certainly makes the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing a bit out of date in my book.
I am a limited Liability company, but it will still expose me to unethical solicitors and legal vultures. Meaning expense to prove my innocence.
The joys of self employment 😕
-
quote :this is only a small portion of our trade but its a beginning… if done “realistically” there could be more money in it for us as qualified sign makers as opposed to the blackpool pleasure beach type signage we see on our high streets every day.Rob…………we get asked to make blackpool pleasure type signage every day of the week. We get good money for it too!! Mind you, we are based at the seaside
😀 😀
-
Shane,
Protect yourself.
Create another company that provides the signage etc.
Put all your assets under another company. Lease the assets to the company performing the work. In essence the company providing and installing the signs is worthless in assets. At least any buildings you own or major equipment won’t just be taken off you when the company is sued.
So when you get sued you don’t loose your pants.
If people can use the law to clean you out, you can use the law to let them take 100% of nothing.
-
quote jxuereb:Shane,
Protect yourself.
Create another company that provides the signage etc.
Put all your assets under another company. Lease the assets to the company performing the work. In essence the company providing and installing the signs is worthless in assets. At least any buildings you own or major equipment won’t just be taken off you when the company is sued.
So when you get sued you don’t loose your pants.
If people can use the law to clean you out, you can use the law to let them take 100% of nothing.
Thanks Jason.
I’m a step ahead of you.
I run my personal stuff through a Family Trust, who then pays the Limited Liability company to do the work.
I’m effectively paid a management fee to run the business. My limited Liability company also rents the equipment off the Family Trust.
Costs me a fortune in accountancy fees though, but its kind of like insurance I guess. Only issues I have found is that some financial institutions look at you differently when you deal through a Trust.
Interestingly, I have a client that is on the advisory board to the government in regards Trusts and Investments, and he tells me that ‘modern’ Trusts were initially devised to protect politicians and their families, until the wider community got wind of it.
Now, the pollys are trying to change the rules, but are trying to build in safeguards that protect them. Why does that not surprise me….
-
I don’t entirely agree with you Shane as along with this legislation the "blame" culture also is the risk assessment and competency legislation
Person or persons described in the light bulb scenario should have performed and follow a safe job analysis and risk assessment to stop any of the mishaps described through control measures and if any injuries or investigations into such would find that the performing authority did not do a proper risk assessment for the job and you could not be held responsible for their incompetence. Is my understanding of it.Goop
-
quote Forbie:I don’t entirely agree with you Shane as along with this legislation the “blame” culture also is the risk assessment and competency legislation
Person or persons described in the light bulb scenario should have performed and follow a safe job analysis and risk assessment to stop any of the mishaps described through control measures and if any injuries or investigations into such would find that the performing authority did not do a proper risk assessment for the job and you could not be held responsible for their incompetence. Is my understanding of it.Goop
I entirely agree Goop, if we are talking about a business here, but what about the family member that decides to get a ladder out of the Attic, and replace the bulb his or herself. I can’t see any normal family doing a risk assessment to do normal things around the house. Changing a bulb is not rocket science after all. Surely, at some point, the person changing the bulb makes the decision if it is something they can safely do or not.
Anything is dangerous though. I know a guy that died putting out the garbage. He tripped over his undone shoelace, and smashed his head on a brick fence. No amount of risk assessment can foretell every scenario.
Under this idea of blame, who’s the person at fault with the death of my friend? The designer of the fence? The designer of the shoe? or the designer of the lace? Sure, he didn’t tie his lace up, but it could be argued that the shoe should have been designed not to use laces perhaps. Or the lace was obviously poorly designed, else it would have stayed tied up.
My Cousin is a professional Risk Assessment engineer. ( They have created a new industry for petes sake) He makes a very healthy living out of examining possible risks. He’s the first to tell you tho, the only risk free option to using a machine for instance is to turn the machine off. The only way to prevent an accident is by not doing anything, staying home. Doing anything has a % of risk.. the more you do, the higher that % goes up.
IMHO we’ve taken the blame game way too far. At some stage we each must take responsibility for our own actions. Blaming others is not the answer. Faulty design is one thing, but end of the day, and accident is exactly that, an accident.
Log in to reply.
