Assumption Of Risk Who Is To Blame — страница 2

  • Просмотров 240
  • Скачиваний 9
  • Размер файла 17
    Кб

“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 transportation, food, and entertainment, or act as the discount airline and only claim responsibility for the transportation. The warning holds no

validity once the individual has lost control over their well being. In continuing with the theory that the provider of a service holds the minimum obligation to produce their product; the situation which arises in the case of cigarette companies tends to raise several questions. If it is correct that they provide a good which is legal under present law, how can they be held responsible in any way? In following with the statement above, the cigarette company holds a minimum obligation to the individual to produce a “safe” cigarette. The meaning of safe in this context is meant to imply that the cigarette will meet the safety requirements set by the government so that individuals are not killed by a single cigarette. This act of producing “safe” cigarettes for individuals

covers the minimum obligation of the company to the individual. In this case, any additional concerns or problems which the user may have as a result of the product becomes the responsibility of the cigarette addict. The cigarette company seemingly performs more than the minimum obligation by also providing a product which fills the crave of addiction. Continued use of this addictive product may lead to detrimental health and lung disease. Cigarette companies attempt to protect themselves from such issues by warning users of the inherent dangers and therefore eliminating their responsibility for the result. After all, the individual must only notice the risk and discontinue the use of cigarettes to reduce the risk of illness. Therefore, it seems that the company holds no problems

since they provide the product and clearly state the risks of use. In this case it becomes the individual’s responsibility to accept the risk and suffer the consequences. A large problem arises in the addictive nature of the cigarette to seize control over the actions of the individual user. Although the product acknowledges its addictive quality, the addiction still continues to seize complete control over the situation of cigarette smoking. The user becomes chemically dependent on the product and becomes unable to avoid the risks associated. As in the airplane case, the cigarette company gains control over the individual and is therefore forced to share responsibility for their actions. By outwardly admitting the problem at hand, the cigarette company must handle the

consequences. It seems logical that the company could restrict blame solely to the user, due to the self-inflictive nature of the problem. The problem lies in the fact that as the cigarette company admits to the addictive nature of their product, they emphasize the fact that they have seized control of the situation. Taking control of the situation forces the company to take responsibility for the outcome produced. Cigarettes are intended to be addictive in order to increase sales. Thus, if the company shares in the awards of the addiction, they should consequently share in the damages as well. A case which differs, due the control of the individual over their actions, is that of the mining industry. The only problem for the company is that of the moral dilemma accepted by the