[WalterBright]

How about the playground equipment at schools has all been wussified due to lawsuits?

Or kids' chemistry sets that went in the 1960s from an advanced chemistry course to little more than kitchen recipes?

All the result of lawsuits.

Then there was a painter who fell off his own ladder while painting Steve Ballmer's mansion, who successfully sued Ballmer for zillions. And people in general who carry millions of dollars in liability insurance.

As for "not making it to trial", people often settle out of fear of what would happen in court, not because the lawsuits wouldn't get traction in court.

[ridgeguy]

I have fond memories of my Gilbert chemistry set, circa 1964. It allowed me to learn chemistry and get in slightly serious trouble if I didn't pay attention. Totally excellent.

Not long ago, I checked out buying a chem set for my grand-niece. Completely uninspiring. Color changes. Baking soda/vinegar fizzes. I bought her good archery equipment. I'll take care of the chemistry inspiration with my own curriculum.

[WalterBright]

My Gilbert chemistry set was the last one before they were emasculated. Had a lot of fun with it, but didn't learn much chemistry :-)

I was smart enough not to eat the copper sulfate.

[Kranar]

I think you're just making things up based on an unfounded and certainly unsubstantiated perception of reality.

Do you have any reference for your claim about Steve Ballmer? I tried numerous different ways of searching for it and none of them produce any kind of result. I also tried Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and some other rich tech CEOs but nothing comes up. Once again, you may have heard some kind of anecdotes or stories and mixed things up in your mind to create an image of what you think is real, but the actual statistics and facts do not back up your bold assertions.

For example, it's not lawsuits that put an end to the chemistry sets of the 1960s, it's the Toxic Substances Control Act together with the The Toy Safety Act that removed the use of lead, poisons, acids and other toxic chemicals from chemistry sets that were marketing towards kids. Had nothing to do with lawsuits but rather due to legislation.

If you want actually want to blame something for the decline of the modern chemistry set, it has more to do with policymakers concerns about their use in illegal drug manufacturing than it does with any kind of lawsuit.

[WalterBright]

> Do you have any reference for your claim about Steve Ballmer?

It was some years ago in the Seattle Times. Sorry I didn't keep a clipping.

I was also injured once in a car accident, being hit by a garbage truck. The ambulance people told me I hit the jackpot. People came out of the woodwork recommending personal injury lawyers who could set me up for life. People at work all told me I had the million dollar injury. People were coaching (unasked) me on how to pretend I was much more injured than I was.

All I asked for was to pay the medical bills and lost time at work and my car. The opposition lawyer was aghast, and was certainly eager to sign that deal.

But I'm just imagining things, right?

I could be wrong about the chemistry set emasculation. But just a couple weeks ago on HN there was a long thread about the wussification of school playgrounds.

[Kranar]

>It was some years ago in the Seattle Times. Sorry I didn't keep a clipping.

The Seattle Times has a searchable archive of all their articles going back 30 years.

Searches for "Ballmer lawsuit", "Ballmer painter", "Ballmer ladder" all turn up nothing. It looks like you made this story up; not in an intentionally deceptive manner mind you, but the same way old wives make up stories by mixing together pieces of different stories taken out of context together to fit a narrative.

Your anecdote about getting into an accident is tragic, but has nothing to do to support your claim that, and I quote:

"it's never the injured person who is at fault, it's always somebody nearby who has money."

Finally your point about wussification of school playgrounds is precisely what I wish to avoid. There was basically a conversation on HN where people parroted opinions about how playgrounds are wussified, and just like with this discussion it probably had no facts or evidence to substantiate the claim but you accepted the claims made in that discussion simply on the basis that it appeals to your belief system.

Do not believe everything you read on this site. You can be mindful that people on this site have opinions on certain topics, but do not take those opinions and then reassert them as if they are facts. This site is just as full of misinformation and biases as any other, where people pretend to be experts and assert categorical statements on subjects they have no expertise in because it appeals to their beliefs. Yes this place is more civil about spreading misinformation, but misinformation is no more factual just because the people spreading it do so politely.

[WalterBright]

> It looks like you made this story up

I understand that it is not in the ST archives, and because of that, you do not believe it. That's a perfectly reasonable position for you to take. I did not make it up, though. But I'll still withdraw it pending finding citable evidence.

As for playgrounds:

https://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2018/06/lawsuits-take-sc...

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/09/25/elementary-st...

[WalterBright]

> but has nothing to do to support your claim that, and I quote: "it's never the injured person who is at fault, it's always somebody nearby who has money."

The intended target of the lawsuit was the company that operated the truck that hit me, not the operator. The reason is simple, the truck driver didn't have any money, and the company did.

I hope you carry liability insurance, because if someone trips in your yard and breaks an arm and your house looks expensive, they're going to sue you.

[Kranar]

>The reason is simple, the truck driver didn't have any money, and the company did.

The reason is simple, but has nothing to do with what you think it does. The legal principle is known as vicarious liability which means that employers are vicariously liable for accidents arising as a result of the actions of their employees during the scope and course of employment.

You were advised to sue the company because the company was the only entity who could possibly be liable for the accident you suffered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

[WalterBright]

Exactly what I was talking about:

"The prevailing atmosphere is it's never the injured person who is at fault, it's always somebody nearby who has money."

And the reason for this is money. You can't sue an employee for $200 million, because he doesn't have $200 million. So let's make the employer, who has $200 million, liable, even though the employer was not negligent and did not cause the accident.

This isn't justice.

Thank you, though, I did not know there was a specific term for this. "Vicarious" liability, indeed.

[HWR_14]

> it's the Toxic Substances Control Act together with the The Toy Safety Act

I think it's good to note in cases like this that both were bipartisan (in passage if not in origination), lest one side or the other think this was an ideological issue.