What's
it about?
Recently the author received a letter from his friendly local Council Officer. To make
a long story short, I was informed that the roots of a tree in our front yard had
allegedly dislodged a section of footpath. And just to make the point in demanding payment
to cover the expense, the Council claimed that any injury suffered by a pedestrian as a
result of the broken footpath would be the fault of the property owner (myself) and could
land my family in court with a hefty personal injuries claim to settle.
I was not amused, as you can imagine (not the least because
the letter was dated 31/12/99 and the Council offices had already closed for a number of
days). I immediately wrote back with a little legal analysis of my own. Yes, I agreed, it
may in fact be dangerous, but since I was quite prepared to pay for the rectification of
the problem, and authorised such in my reply, the ball was most definitely in their court.
As I had no legal recourse to barricade the offending public area, I suggested that they
do so or fix the problem forthwith (a month later I have not even had the courtesy of a
reply, let alone any remedial activity in front of my house). The fact that nothing has
been done might suggest that the threats of looming legal actions were the stick with
which to obtain my payment for the work.
Ah, you say, that's all very well, but what does this have to do
with the title of this month's Lawspot? Plenty.
Was
the Y2K bug a con?
Many of us took advantage of the time differences on New Year's Day and watched the
unfolding of the new century across the various longitudes on the all day television
coverage. Fireworks aplenty, champagne corks popping, breathless announcers caught in the
spirit of a new Millennium. And incongruously, amidst all this frivolity, we were treated
to dour hourly updates on the progress of the dreaded Y2K bug - the most hyped affliction
since the Black Plague. Yes, it was a fizzer, the 747's kept on flying and the nuclear
missiles, snug in their concrete silos, blessedly failed to do the same. And though we are
thankful to have survived intact, there is a lingering resentment, not unlike those
doomsday visionaries who cannot believe their predictions of the millennial apocalypse
were somewhat exaggerated.
How would you feel if you were the owner of a business that
had sunk a few year's worth of your technology budget into costly Y2K preparations? No
doubt a little peeved, or even the victim of a well executed con? Let us offer another
scenario. Few people disputed the need for some tinkering to take account of a nearsighted
decision decades ago to allow for only two-digit year codes in computer programs, but many
now believe the potential problems were overstated. So why did everyone, from businesses
to hospitals, spend so much on this problem? And let's not forget the taxpayers who
shelled out billions to prevent a disaster in publicly owned utilities. In part, the
answer is straightforward - they were terrified of the legal consequences if they could
not prove they had undertaken the necessary precautions.
Fear
is a great motivator
Let's be honest about this - nowadays, the most persuasive threat is not fisticuffs but
a letter of demand that might lead to expensive legal action. Your local Council wants to
get your attention - the quickest way to a ratepayers pocket is to suggest the possibility
of legal proceedings if you don't do what you're told. How is this accomplished?
If a person suffers "damage" because of your negligence they may have a claim
against you. This is precisely the stick used by my local Council. First, its important to
understand the nature of a legal claim for "damages". If someone negligently
slams into the back of your car, the damage is a dented bumper bar. But under the law,
"damage" refers to a loss suffered by a person as a result of the foreseeable
negligent actions of another. In other words, the action was careless and the resulting
injury could have been anticipated. For instance, if you reverse your car out of your
drive without taking care to check whether a pedestrian is crossing the footpath, and the
pedestrian is injured, then you haven't taken proper care (you didn't look where you were
going), from which it could be anticipated that the pedestrian might be injured. After
all, it's always possible a pedestrian will be walking by at the moment your car crosses
the footpath, and you know a serious injury might result if a car hits a person.
Let's say there had been serious damage to electricity customers as a result of their
failure to update their computer systems to take account of the Y2K bug? Given the hype
and dire predictions surrounding the problem, this damage would certainly have been
"foreseeable". Hence you, as the consumer, would be able to sue them because
they did not take proper care to protect your electricity supply.
So what were the alternatives faced by Governments and businesses? They could either
pray for the best, or face the prospect of legal claims that would have cost them
multiples of the cost of updating their computer programs.
The culture of
litigation
We're all so sacred of being sued that we tend to take every precaution, no matter what
the cost, to avoid this most terrible of prospects. Of course there were substantial
benefits in the overhaul of this country's computer equipment, even if the Y2K bug failed
to materialise to any great extent. Many obsolete computer systems were updated, and we
were able to better position ourselves for the coming exponential opportunities available
in an age of information technology. Nevertheless, once again the threat of litigation has
proved to be a persuasive tool. We accept that everyone should have recourse to the law
when they have suffered a loss, but it might be more amicable if those in authority, like
my friendly local Council, didn't bludgeon us with threats of court action at every
opportunity.
Read this: The legal information contained
above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for
legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept
responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this
information.
Want us to
tell you when we put out another news item?
|