Assumption of Risk Who is to Blame For Our Action Essay Example For Students

Assumption of Risk: Who is to Blame For Our Action Essay sAssumption of Risk: Who is to Blame For Our ActionsThe doctrine of assumption of risk clearly defines the responsibilityof all voluntary actions taken on by individuals, independent of the inherentrisk or danger involved with such actions. Are we only to assume responsibilityfor the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negativeoutcomes as well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in whichthey are fully responsible for their actions. Living within a country whichhouses a large amount of private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying onoutside help. In many occasions we, the individual seeking assistance, hold thepower to choose which avenue of help will be taken. In these cases in which wehave the choice, should we not also be held responsible for the outcomes of ourdecisions, especially in cases in which we have been pre-warned about anyinherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to driveon a private road, smoke cigarettes, work for a mining company, or fly on adiscount airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to takeresponsibility for any outcome these actions may hold? The assumption of riskdoctrine seems to ignore the fundamental obligation of entities to ensure theirnatural goals. The distinguishing factor in deciding responsibility infaultless cases which call on the assumption of risk doctrine is the controlheld by individuals after the situation has begun. In accordance, companiessuch as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on theresponsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to workin a mine or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of theiractions to do so. All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customersfrom a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person whoagrees 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 theairline. The individual traveler should assume no other benefits other thantransportation. The airline company claims this act of transportation to be itsgoal of services rendered. Independent of difficulties which may arise incompleting this goal, the airline may not alter the basic duty which it iscontractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented to performthis basic duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an acceptedpayment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all controlover their safety to the accepting airline which holds the minimumresponsibility of returning the individual back to a state of safety once theirduty is complete. The me re nature of airplane transportation forces theindividual to render total control over themselves to the airline. Thistransfer of control holds the airline responsible for any action which may occurdue to the obvious lack of responsibility in the hands of the individual. Oncethe plane has closed the cabin they withhold all control of an individual overthemselves, and must grant the service promised. The individual may demand theright to existence and hold the company liable once they hold the power todictate all aspects of the situation. One problem which arises within the situation is that of somethinghappening which the airline holds no control over. Any difficulties which arisedue to the daily routine of the airplane fall under the responsibility of theairline. Even occurrences which are deemed unavoidable fall under theresponsibility of the airline because they hold total responsibility of theirclients once the cabin is closed. Due to the complete control the airline holdson the situation it may be assumed that the doctrine of assumption of riskapplies solely to the airline. In creating a situation in which the individualmust give up his/her right to self-substinance the airline holds fullresponsibility for any actions taken which may effect the safety of itspassengers. Anytime the airline engages in profit making acts, such as cuttingcosts, they increase the risk upon themselves in return for extra monetarybenefits. Monique Abdelsayed EssayAlthough the company acknowledges the dangers of working in the mines, it is thedecision of the workers to accept the risk or find less hazardous job. Theindividual holds the power to work in the mine or not. Unlike smoking, the mineholds no addictive qualities which force the workers to stay. The workerassumes full responsibility for his/her actions due to the choice to work in ahazardous area. Since the company never gains control over the worker, theworker stays in full control of the situation given the apparent risks involved. The only instance in which the mining company gains some power over theindividual is in the case of monetary concerns. If the individual can onlyobtain work at the mine and relies upon the income produced, it seems clear thatthe company then holds some power over the individual. Although, this power islimited by the mind set of the individual to determine the actual importance ofmonetary gains. Since the mine holds no addictive quality which forces theindividual to work, the worker holds a free mind to decide what qualities oflife are most important. This freedom to decide releases the company fromresponsibility of any problems which may arise as a result of the mine work, andplaces all burden on the individual. Some may argue that the mining company holds some responsibility overthe well-being of its employees. These beliefs support the idea that thecompany should provide the greatest amount of safety precautions for theirworkers. This can be witnessed through the use of safety equipment, medical aid,and protective gear. Since the company has already warned about the risks, itbecomes the burden of the individual to purchase these items for themselves. The company only holds the obligations to inform the workers of such availableequipment. If the workers feel this is unfair they may quit working andpossibly force employers to engage in such safety precautions. Theresponsibility of providing payment for work is the only act which must be takenon by the employer after they have given the warnings about the dangers ofmining. The rest of the responsibility lies in the hands of the miners who holdthe power to decide where they work. The final case regarding responsibility of actions lies on a privateroad which warns individuals of falling rocks. The sign posted at the beginningof the road clearly states any dangers and makes the reader aware of theapparent risks. The fundamental obligation of the road is similar to that ofthe airplane in that it must provide a means for transportation from point A topoint B. However, the road differs from the plane in that the person driving isin control of the situation at all times, and never gives up control over theiractions. The speed of travel, length of stay on the road, and the decision totravel on the road are all decisions made by the individual and have a directeffect on the safety of the individual. In this case the driver becomesresponsible for his actions on the road. The owner of the road met therequirements set upon him by providing means of transport and warning of anydanger; all other responsibility lies in the able hands of the individualdriving the automobile . The responsibility of any given action remains in the hands of those incontrol of the action at any given time. As seen in the airplane and cigaretteexamples, proper warning does not warrant lack of responsibility if theindividual holds no control over the outcome of the action. The mining companyand private road examples show how responsibility lies in the hands of theindividual as long as control over the situation is also controlled by theindividual. It is clear to see that responsibility for any given action remainsin the hands of those who hold control over the situation. Philosophy