Well, well, Russell.
Very logical and ( I think) clear.
Russell - I could outline a similar set of circumstances in my local
community of Blaenau Ffestiniog. In particular, I have a close (life
long) friend who frequently and recurrently manifests behavior like D,
and who is continually hurt and frustrated when 'opinion' appears to
build against his own 'reasonable' view of things and reasonable
behavior. This happens all the time, as this friend is very active in
local community initiatives (we are a very deprived region), and is
passionate about 'ameliorating' things, whether on a personal,
educational or economic level.
It is precisely because of his passion that my friend feels compelled
to 'add to the mix', and (perhaps more significant for your case
study) feels that he is doing so for very selfless and reasonable
From my vantage (and this might have no bearing on D), the
'problem' (in so far as it is such) concerns my friend's failure to
discriminate between his personal aspirations and his community
living. He does the same in the work place - he runs a small (and
successfull) business and believes fanatically that he runs a
perfectly 'humane' company to the advantage of it employees, even
though as the founder and 'sole boss' he refuses any move to 'grow the
company beyond his own comfort level, but for the benefit of
employment in the region. He 'micro manages' while denying till he is
blue in the face, that he ever does so!
As a self-made man, and as a person who has integrated himself into
the community of decades, he has lost sight of the separation (or the
co-existence) of self and other. Deep down he believes that it is HIS
OWN efforts that have led to a better community (and business), and
that this flow of benefit is mainly one way - from him to others. He
was forgotten that these things (as we all know) are always
recipricol, and in particular, he has a blind spot about the
circularity of the dynamics.
The mistake (in so far as there is one - in both the instances - is to
fall into the trap of 'naming' (whether to himself or to others) the
'realities' of the situation. realities which carry the implications
of his own 'betterness'. That subtle implication is what generates the
antagonism of others in the entailed communities (Web or otherwise).
PS don't know at all whether this is relevant or not to the case you
instance - but it is intended to be.
On 9 Jan 2011, at 08:46, russell_c wrote:
> One for the legal beagles.
> There is no legal matter in this -- it is just a case study (based
> on actual events) in which I would like to clarify one fact: shared
> responsibility and risk.
> I only need an answer to feel more confident in my discussions with
> others on this case study.
> I don't need legal opinion -- but I just would like to know whether
> in general principle my point about some degree of shared
> responsibility is valid -- or at least a grey area needing some
> The contention is between two world views: one that holds a 100%:0%
> 'blame' paradigm; and one that holds a shared risk paradigm
> somewhere (but not explicit) in the range of 99%-1%.
> The debate is not legal (although it is ultimately a legal issue if
> pursued - which is not in this case): it is philosophic.
> It is just a case study but I'd like to know more clearly whether
> I'm correct or not. I hold the shared responsibility view (around
> the 80:20 range). The principle is the focus -- not the actual values.
> A -- a small company selling kitesurfing equipment and providing
> training services via 'sub contractors' who ply their trade on a
> public beach.
> B -- Trainer walking on public beach with C in a training session.
> C -- personal being trained by B through a contract with A.
> D -- Independent person on the beach in an activity with some
> physical risk to D (only). No risk to others by virtue of ensuring
> no other public are close by in direction of wind and potential risk
> zone if event fails.
> D has no relationship with B or C. (and in fact never met)
> D has some historical commercial relationship with A.
> B is wearing a top wetsuit vest that subtly identified her as a
> trainer for A.
> B and D have never met before although D has observed her in the
> distance training others.
> The location is in D's local beach area less than 0.7km from house.
> A, B & C most likely travel to the location from elsewhere.
> There is no suggestion of fowl play or poor intent by any party --
> merely poor communications, timing and lack of understanding of
> shared risk at that time (by B) in a public place with respect to D
> (and others in same situation).
> At a critical moment in D performing an act (e.g. launching a large
> kite), B (with C in tow) calls out to D from behind (and to the side
> a touch) that the "bar is around the wrong way" or words to that
> effect. D did not realise B was there or only slightly noticed from
> corner of the eye just moments earlier. B & C were walking along a
> beach where small sand dunes blocked D's view of their approach.
> This causes D to hesitate at a critical moment of launch, look down
> and check the bar (held in the hands to control the kite via 4x25 m
> strings.) D finds the bar is not around the wrong way. D wonders
> what B is talking about and replies that he basically 'knows what he
> is doing' (or at least that the bar is correctly held). The kite
> lifts abruptly and D is slightly off balance due to B's
> interruption. D is pulled to the ground , hurts ribs and breaks kite
> string. D contends that this may or may not have happened without
> B's uninvited interruption to his private activities on a very
> deserted public beach (i.e. no risk to others). No one will ever
> really know.
> No other party is hurt or was put in danger. D was learning the ways
> of the kite. Perhaps the kite was not positioned well with respect
> to wind. However previous self launches by D had been performed and
> worked ok. Winds were a touch stronger than perhaps wise to launch
> in by D -- but not excessive. Position of kite with respect to wind
> could have been better. There was risk but calculated (maybe poorly
> in hindsight).
> B & C walk off.
> D recovers from the spill and packs up equipment and returns home
> via the premises of A (close by) where the equipment was purchased
> and where original training was provided (but not by B).
> D claims that B (as A's employed contractor/employee) is partly
> responsible for the event due to interrupting D without invitation
> and by sending incorrect 'expert' information at that time (the bar
> was not around the wrong way).
> D's original 60:40 shared risk view includes a belief that risk is
> also to A by virtue of employing B (i.e. commercial law etc).
> D and A agree that 70%:30% (D:B) is reasonable.
> A agrees to sell D new strings for large discount just above cost. A
> & D agree this is fair. (basically reflecting the 70:30 split)
> D suggests to A that he advise young B that next time she should be
> more careful about approaching members of the public while on duty.
> D suggests some skills training for B so that opening communication
> can be more polite and in the form of a question -- e.g. "Excuse me,
> can I assist..." (or words to that effect).
> A week later in the same place, under similar conditions (but
> lighter winds and with better kite position etc due to advice from A
> to D on how to do it better), B walks past and offers to help launch
> the kite for D. There are no hard feelings and no other
> communications (D and B are approximately 30 metres apart due to
> length of kite strings). Standard 'ok' & 'thanks' hand signals are
> shared by D & B.
> There is no issue. Both A, B & D seem to have learned something.
> Some weeks later D relates this scenario in a public forum which is
> discussing risk on public beaches in respect to 'Show Pony'
> behaviour that places the public at risk. Public outrage with the
> 'sport' is rising in the wider community due to bad high risk
> behaviour by certain experienced people.
> D receives a public lashing by many people in the small Internet
> community (but not all) for the suggestion that risk was shared in
> this complex situation of concern outlined above. Heated debate and
> bullying attack on D ensue over an extend period by a strident
> section of the Internet fraternity who believe that 'Blame' is 100%
> with D as a 'fact'. No one claims to be a legal expert -- it all
> looks and sounds like opinion.
> Question: Can D claim that risk was shared in that situation of
> concern -- or at least that it is a grey area that would need
> arbitration etc to resolve?
> D's issue is not with B or A.
> Rather it is with the mindset of the rabid Internet forum attackers
> who seem unable to consider the situation and who continue to attack
> D at a personal level from the 100% blame position. It appears to be
> a very strong blame culture. This community may also have higher
> insurance premiums to pay if they find out they do share risk in
> some public-private interaction (especially when commercial trade is
> going on and a 3rd party is affected). Many of these 'voices' are
> probably trainers as well.
> The purpose of D raising this scenario was to develop open
> discussion. A lot of noise was developed (charge & rebuttal) but not
> much information or answers. The original Show Pony situation was
> completely left discussed and unresolved. The Show Pony problem
> seems to have been raised numerous times before and remained a hot
> contentious and unresolved item.
> The kitesurfing community claim to be extremely concerned with self
> governance and not being pinned down with outside control and
> regulations "like elsewhere in the world". Certain 'voices' in the
> Internet fraternity claim this is because of good work by the local
> association of members which also provides public insurance to
> members and requires members to agree to indemnity conditions that
> seem to protect all office holders and all members form challenge.
> After further analysis of the situation (of the internet community
> reaction) D concludes this is largely because the local context is
> in a time warp and that soon there will be public outrage and clamp
> down as it has occurred in other parts of the world..
> Any comments or hints on the original 100% vs shared risk
> responsibility issue most appreciated.
> Nothing will be quoted or ascribed. Email to me 1:1 if more
> Thanks anticipation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For
> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum
> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org
METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html