Читать реферат по английскому: "Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame" Страница 1

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

Assumption Of Risk: Who Is To Blame For Our Actions Essay, Research Paper

Assumption of Risk: Who is to Blame For Our Actions

The doctrine of “assumption of risk” clearly defines the responsibility

of all voluntary actions taken on by individuals, independent of the inherent

risk or danger involved with such actions. Are we only to assume responsibility

for the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negative

outcomes as well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in which

they are fully responsible for their actions. Living within a country which

houses a large amount of private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying on

outside help. In many occasions we, the individual seeking assistance, hold the

power to choose which avenue of help will be taken. In these cases in which we

have the choice, should we not also be held responsible for the outcomes of our

decisions, especially in cases in which we have been pre-warned about any

inherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to drive

on a private road, smoke cigarettes, work for a mining company, or fly on a

discount airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to take

responsibility for any outcome these actions may hold? The “assumption of risk”

doctrine seems to ignore the fundamental obligation of entities to ensure their

natural goals. The distinguishing factor in deciding responsibility in

faultless cases which call on the “assumption of risk” doctrine is the control

held by individuals after the situation has begun. In accordance, companies

such as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on the

responsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to work

in a mine or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of their

actions to do so.

All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customers

from a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person who

agrees to buy a discount airline ticket, which warns to “fly at your own risk,”

is entitled to receive the minimum service of transportation provided by the

airline. The individual traveler should assume no other benefits other than

transportation. The airline company claims this act of transportation to be its

goal of services rendered. Independent of difficulties which may arise in

completing this goal, the airline may not alter the basic duty which it is

contractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented to perform

this basic duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an accepted

payment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all control

over their safety to the accepting airline which holds the minimum

responsibility of returning the individual back to a state of safety once their

duty is complete. The mere nature of airplane transportation forces the

individual to render total control over themselves to the airline. This

transfer of control holds the airline responsible for any action which may occur

due to the obvious lack of responsibility in the hands of the individual. Once

the plane has closed the cabin they withhold all control of an individual over

themselves, and must grant the service promised. The individual may demand the

right to existence and hold the company liable once they hold the power to

dictate all aspects of the situation.

One problem which arises within the situation is that of something

happening which the airline holds no control over. Any difficulties which arise

due to the daily routine of the airplane fall under the responsibility of the

airline. Even occurrences which are deemed unavoidable fall under the

responsibility of the airline because they hold total responsibility of their

clients once the cabin is closed. Due to the complete control the airline holds

on the situation it may be assumed that the doctrine of “assumption of risk”

applies solely to the airline. In creating a situation in which the individual

must give up his/her right to self-substinance the airline holds full

responsibility for any actions taken which may effect the safety of its

passengers. Anytime the airline engages in profit making acts, such as cutting

costs, they increase the risk upon themselves in return for extra monetary

benefits.

Some may argue that some responsibility falls on the consumer due to the

warning which the airline provided prior to the purchase of the tickets. This

argument revolves around the assumption that the individual becomes responsible

due to their decision to buy a discounted ticket over the full price. Having

been previously warned about the risk involved, the individual is expected to

relieve the airline of responsibility for any mishaps which may occur. This

idea of responsibility may hold true if, and only if, the participant holds some

control over their well-being once inside the cabin of the airplane. There is

no controversy over the fact that the individual willingly accepted the

discounted rate and received a warning, but the airline still holds the

responsibility of earning its payment by completing the minimal requirement of

transportation. The prior warning only holds precedence over the individuals

ability to choose an airline which may either claim responsibility for numerous

actions, such as

Похожие работы