Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Food for thought

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> My thoughts precisely
> >I went to a Doctor the other day to see about getting a deviated septum repaired.  We went over the procedure with explanations on what would happen and the benefits of making the repairs.  I was no> >
> >However, I was then sent to a person to discuss money and liability. 
> >During this process I was suppose to sign a waiver of liability which
> >basically stated that if the procedure did not work, too bad.  I wouldn't
> >even get my money back.
> >
> >So, I was just thinking.  Why couldn't we do that?  Just have our clients
> >sign a waiver stating that if a building had a structural failure, then too
> >bad, it just wasn't meant to be.
> >
> >Of course I know that this is unethical, impractical, bad for business and the profession, etc.  But how come the medical profession can get away with this type of treatment?  I understand that ther> >
> >Maybe I'm just missing something.
I think a distinction needs to be made between liability for 
negligence and guaranteeing results. While courts generally will not 
enforce provisions that are designed to eliminate liability for 
negligence because they are against public policy, this does not 
mean that they will not enforce provisions that disclaim guarantees 
for results.  If the failure to achieve a particular result was not 
the result of negligence but was because such results are just
unpredictable, courts should uphold a clauses that disclaims a 
guarantee of a particular result.