Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Who is to Blame

The doctrine of "assumption of risk" clearly defines the

responsibility of all voluntary actions taken on by individuals, independent of the

inherent risk or danger involved with such actions. Are we only to assume responsibility

for the positive outcomes of our actions, without also accepting the negative outcomes as

well? Most individuals only claim responsibility in cases in which they are fully

responsible for their actions. Living within a country which houses a large amount of

private enterprise, we often find ourselves relying on outside help. In many occasions we,

the individual seeking assistance, hold the power to choose which avenue of help will be

taken. In these cases in which we have the choice, should we not also be held responsible

for the outcomes of our decisions, especially in cases in which we have been pre-warned

about any inherent risks or dangers? For example, When we take it upon ourselves to drive

on a private road, smoke cigarettes, work for a mining company, or fly on a discount

airline at our own volition, do we tacitly consent to take responsibility for any outcome

these actions may hold? The "assumption of risk" doctrine seems to ignore the

fundamental obligation of entities to ensure their natural goals. The distinguishing

factor in deciding responsibility in faultless cases which call on the "assumption of

risk" doctrine is the control held by individuals after the situation has begun. In

accordance, companies such as discount airlines and cigarette companies must take on the

responsibility of completing their duties, while individuals who chose to work in a mine

or drive on a private road must accept the responsibility of their actions to do so.

All airlines hold the responsibility of transporting their customers

from a point of origin to a previously designated destination. The person who agrees 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 the airline. The

individual traveler should assume no other benefits other than transportation. The airline

company claims this act of transportation to be its goal of services rendered. Independent

of difficulties which may arise in completing this goal, the airline may not alter the

basic duty which it is contractually obligated to perform. The airline tacitly consented

to perform this basic duty the moment they began transporting individuals for an accepted

payment. Once an individual has boarded the airplane they render all control over their

safety to the accepting airline which holds the minimum responsibility of returning the

individual back to a state of safety once their duty is complete. The mere nature of

airplane transportation forces the individual to render total control over themselves to

the airline. This transfer of control holds the airline responsible for any action which

may occur due to the obvious lack of responsibility in the hands of the individual. Once

the plane has closed the cabin they withhold all control of an individual over themselves,

and must grant the service promised. The individual may demand the right to existence and

hold the company liable once they hold the power to dictate all aspects of the situation.

One problem which arises within the situation is that of something

happening which the airline holds no control over. Any difficulties which arise due to the

daily routine of the airplane fall under the responsibility of the airline. Even

occurrences which are deemed unavoidable fall under the responsibility of the airline

because they hold total responsibility of their clients once the cabin is closed. Due to

the complete control the airline holds on the situation it may be assumed that the

doctrine of "assumption of risk" applies solely to the airline. In creating a

situation in which the individual must give up his/her right to self-substinance the

airline holds full responsibility for any actions taken which may effect the safety of its

passengers. Anytime the airline engages in profit making acts, such as cutting costs, they

increase the risk upon themselves in return for extra monetary benefits.

Some may argue that some responsibility falls on the consumer due to

the warning which the airline provided prior to the purchase of the tickets. This argument

revolves around the assumption that the individual becomes responsible due to their

decision to buy a discounted ticket over the full price. Having been previously warned

about the risk involved, the individual is expected to relieve the airline of

responsibility for any mishaps which may occur. This idea of responsibility may hold true

if, and only if, the participant holds some control over their well-being once inside the

cabin of the airplane. There is no controversy over the fact that the individual willingly

accepted the discounted rate and received a warning, but the airline still holds the

responsibility of earning its payment by completing the minimal requirement of

transportation. The prior warning only holds precedence over the individuals ability to

choose an airline which may either claim responsibility for numerous actions, such as

transportation, food, and entertainment, or act as the discount airline and only claim

responsibility for the transportation. The warning holds no validity once the individual

has lost control over their well being.

In continuing with the theory that the provider of a service holds the

minimum obligation to produce their product; the situation which arises in the case of

cigarette companies tends to raise several questions. If it is correct that they provide a

good which is legal under present law, how can they be held responsible in any way? In

following with the statement above, the cigarette company holds a minimum obligation to

the individual to produce a "safe" cigarette. The meaning of safe in this

context is meant to imply that the cigarette will meet the safety requirements set by the

government so that individuals are not killed by a single cigarette. This act of producing

"safe" cigarettes for individuals covers the minimum obligation of the company

to the individual. In this case, any additional concerns or problems which the user may

have as a result of the product becomes the responsibility of the cigarette addict. The

cigarette company seemingly performs more than the minimum obligation by also providing a

product which fills the crave of addiction. Continued use of this addictive product may

lead to detrimental health and lung disease. Cigarette companies attempt to protect

themselves from such issues by warning users of the inherent dangers and therefore

eliminating their responsibility for the result. After all, the individual must only

notice the risk and discontinue the use of cigarettes to reduce the risk of illness.

Therefore, it seems that the company holds no problems since they provide the product and

clearly state the risks of use. In this case it becomes the individual’s responsibility to

accept the risk and suffer the consequences.

A large problem arises in the addictive nature of the cigarette to

seize control over the actions of the individual user. Although the product acknowledges

its addictive quality, the addiction still continues to seize complete control over the

situation of cigarette smoking. The user becomes chemically dependent on the product and

becomes unable to avoid the risks associated. As in the airplane case, the cigarette

company gains control over the individual and is therefore forced to share responsibility

for their actions. By outwardly admitting the problem at hand, the cigarette company must

handle the consequences. It seems logical that the company could restrict blame solely to

the user, due to the self-inflictive nature of the problem. The problem lies in the fact

that as the cigarette company admits to the addictive nature of their product, they

emphasize the fact that they have seized control of the situation. Taking control of the

situation forces the company to take responsibility for the outcome produced. Cigarettes

are intended to be addictive in order to increase sales. Thus, if the company shares in

the awards of the addiction, they should consequently share in the damages as well.

A case which differs, due the control of the individual over their

actions, is that of the mining industry. The only problem for the company is that of the

moral dilemma accepted by the company’s executives. When we look at the case from a

distance it seems to be similar to that of the cigarette industry, but the difference lies

in the non-addictive nature of mining. Although the company acknowledges the dangers of

working in the mines, it is the decision of the workers to accept the risk or find less

hazardous job. The individual holds the power to work in the mine or not. Unlike smoking,

the mine holds no addictive qualities which force the workers to stay. The worker assumes

full responsibility for his/her actions due to the choice to work in a hazardous area.

Since the company never gains control over the worker, the worker stays in full control of

the situation given the apparent risks involved.

The only instance in which the mining company gains some power over the

individual is in the case of monetary concerns. If the individual can only obtain work at

the mine and relies upon the income produced, it seems clear that the company then holds

some power over the individual. Although, this power is limited by the mind set of the

individual to determine the actual importance of monetary gains. Since the mine holds no

addictive quality which forces the individual to work, the worker holds a free mind to

decide what qualities of life are most important. This freedom to decide releases the

company from responsibility of any problems which may arise as a result of the mine work,

and places all burden on the individual.

Some may argue that the mining company holds some responsibility over

the well-being of its employees. These beliefs support the idea that the company should

provide the greatest amount of safety precautions for their workers. This can be witnessed

through the use of safety equipment, medical aid, and protective gear. Since the company

has already warned about the risks, it becomes the burden of the individual to purchase

these items for themselves. The company only holds the obligations to inform the workers

of such available equipment. If the workers feel this is unfair they may quit working and

possibly force employers to engage in such safety precautions. The responsibility of

providing payment for work is the only act which must be taken on by the employer after

they have given the warnings about the dangers of mining. The rest of the responsibility

lies in the hands of the miners who hold the power to decide where they work.

The final case regarding responsibility of actions lies on a private

road which warns individuals of falling rocks. The sign posted at the beginning of the

road clearly states any dangers and makes the reader aware of the apparent risks. The

fundamental obligation of the road is similar to that of the airplane in that it must

provide a means for transportation from point A to point B. However, the road differs from

the plane in that the person driving is in control of the situation at all times, and

never gives up control over their actions. The speed of travel, length of stay on the

road, and the decision to travel on the road are all decisions made by the individual and

have a direct effect on the safety of the individual. In this case the driver becomes

responsible for his actions on the road. The owner of the road met the requirements set

upon him by providing means of transport and warning of any danger; all other

responsibility lies in the able hands of the individual driving the automobile.

The responsibility of any given action remains in the hands of those in

control of the action at any given time. As seen in the airplane and cigarette examples,

proper warning does not warrant lack of responsibility if the individual holds no control

over the outcome of the action. The mining company and private road examples show how

responsibility lies in the hands of the individual as long as control over the situation

is also controlled by the individual. It is clear to see that responsibility for any given

action remains in the hands of those who hold control over the situation.