Well, this is what you said:
So it IS about responsibility, and businesses are every bit as responsible as humans acting on their own. If I send you to the hospital, I or my insurance should pay- even if you made the choice to come to my house and hang out with me. If Mc Donald's sends you to the hospital, even if you made the decision to go there, Mc D ought to pick up the costs attributable to that visit. It might be too hard to apportion that kind of responsibility- but responsible they are, imo.
Each of your examples would involve damage payments to (or on behalf of) individuals. In the first, case a person is injured on your property, presumably claiming you were negligent in some way. In the second case, a person claims illness or injury as a result of eating McDonalds products. You suggest that in both cases the responsible party (you and McD) should pay medical costs. I don't see how the state is involved in either case.
In both cases, usually private insurance would be the actual payer (Homeowners policy for you, Product Liability policy for McD). In the long run you and I would be the ultimate payer, as the insurance company passes along these extra costs to their policyholders in the form of increased premiums for all.
Magnified by all such claims, this becomes a redistribution of wealth among the general populace.
What does the state have to do with it?
Footnote: I used to work for an insurance company when I was young. One of our big clients was the company that makes Drano. You use Drano to clean out your sink drains with a bubbling, noxious chemical action. Every year, there were X number of claims against Drano for children who had ingested the product, which comes in a carefully labelled container with many warnings. The typical case would involve a parent who had transferred the powder to an unmarked paper cup and left it on the sink. The child came along and ingested it, and it did a terrific job of unclogging throats and esophaguses of healthy tissue. Some cases were fatal. My firm rarely contested these cases, for fear of a jury's response to maimed child or infant, with logic thrown out the window. We would pay the money, get our money back by increasing premiums for the Drano people, and they would get their money back by adding another 5 or 10 cents to the price of Drano.
You tell me who is being held "responsible" here. |
