Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 March 8
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 7 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
March 8
[edit]The Killing Of Georgie - Rod Stewart
[edit]Do we know who Georgie was? 02:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC) DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- This article states the Rod couldn't remember Georgie's surname. There are some details that might help other editors track down your answer. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
History of Liability Insurance
[edit]I've asked a question at the Talk page for Liability insurance, but that page appears not to be frequently monitored, so I'm trying again here:
- == History ==
- I would have appreciated some discussion of the history of liability insurance in this article. About the only source I've found online is here: [1], which is really concerned with employee injury. Specifically I'm wondering if a small unincorporated US company dealing with the public on its premises would, or might not, have been expected to carry liability coverage for personal injury to a customer, in the early years of the 20th century. Was such premises liability insurance even available at that time, and if so, was it widely used? Articles on insurance tend not to mention personal injury, and articles on public injury and death, such as the disastrous 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire, make no mention of lawsuits or insurance. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not finding much, especially for the US which, judging by information about workmen's compensation, seems to be legislated differently in each state. In England, businesses used to be able to avoid being sued for injury on their property by means of a disclaimer notice, a loophole which was not closed until the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I imagine that compulsory liability insurance of the sort you describe is a recent phenomenon, especially in the US where these things are often more loosely regulated. I'm regretting now that I gave away my insurance textbooks. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- This states that the first automotive liability insurance plan was sold in 1897 to indemnify someone against causing damage to others or injuring other people with their own car, so the concept of liability insurance must be at least that old. That's a clear liability policy. Whether that was the first liability insurance ever I don't know, but it's a date we can start looking at as a benchmark. --Jayron32 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The question is, whether the US case law at the turn of the 20th century would have made store keepers (for example) liable for an accident which a member of the public might have had on their premises. If so, then that risk would certainly have been insurable. A second question is whether a small company would have thought it worthwhile to buy that insurance, or take a chance and hope nothing went wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with both of those. Many thanks for all of these suggestions. It's just frustrating not to find any mention of lawsuits or insurance for those old situations where people got hurt or killed. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Milkunderwood see Iroquois Theater Fire. Although the owners of the theater were charged with criminal manslaughter, the trial collapsed on various legal issues. A civil case followed: "The courts held the George H. Fuller Company [the builder of the theater] solely liable and the company settled five years after the initial disaster for $750 for each claim. These parties originally sued for $10,000 each but the company only had to pay out $29,750 in the end". Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- While I don't know about the specifics about insurance, precise US jurisdictions, when it applies and what it covered, whether loopholes such as that outline by Alansplodge existed etc, I assume there was some concept of premises liability which extended past employees for quite a while in at least some US jurisdictions. Our article notes that
And Rowland v. Christian specifically notes that {{talk quoteAt common law, in the case of landowners, the extent of their duty of care to those who came on their premises varied depending on whether a person was classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. ..... Similarly, in the 1968 landmark case of Rowland v. Christian,[2] the Supreme Court of California replaced the old classifications with a general duty of care to all persons on one's land, regardless of their status.
BTW, Invitee is a very good article, but it may be of interest for research. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Justice Louis H. Burke wrote a dissenting opinion in which fellow conservative Justice Marshall F. McComb concurred. Burke argued that the majority had unnecessarily thrown away centuries of clear precedent for a future of "potentially unlimited liability." He felt that such a dramatic change in the law should come from the legislature.
- If you have access to it, this may be of interest [2]. It looks like it has cases going back to the 18th century e.g. "Defendant shewed a knowledge that the animal was fierce ... by the precaution he used to tie him up" which admittedly was in England (I think) [3], although back then I presume the legal systems were just starting to diverge. BTW, that article only seems to mention with insurance in host-guest situations that I noticed, but it may still be of interest since it suggested an increase in suits and insurance "a few years ago". Since that section is mostly reflecting the difference between a bare licencee in the host-guest situation, and a invitee; this seems to me to strongly imply insurance for invitees to cover at least some aspects of their liability must have existed further back which would seem to put it at least in the early 1940s and probably earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- All this is extremely helpful - I very much appreciate everyone's suggestions. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you have access to it, this may be of interest [2]. It looks like it has cases going back to the 18th century e.g. "Defendant shewed a knowledge that the animal was fierce ... by the precaution he used to tie him up" which admittedly was in England (I think) [3], although back then I presume the legal systems were just starting to diverge. BTW, that article only seems to mention with insurance in host-guest situations that I noticed, but it may still be of interest since it suggested an increase in suits and insurance "a few years ago". Since that section is mostly reflecting the difference between a bare licencee in the host-guest situation, and a invitee; this seems to me to strongly imply insurance for invitees to cover at least some aspects of their liability must have existed further back which would seem to put it at least in the early 1940s and probably earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- While I don't know about the specifics about insurance, precise US jurisdictions, when it applies and what it covered, whether loopholes such as that outline by Alansplodge existed etc, I assume there was some concept of premises liability which extended past employees for quite a while in at least some US jurisdictions. Our article notes that
- Milkunderwood see Iroquois Theater Fire. Although the owners of the theater were charged with criminal manslaughter, the trial collapsed on various legal issues. A civil case followed: "The courts held the George H. Fuller Company [the builder of the theater] solely liable and the company settled five years after the initial disaster for $750 for each claim. These parties originally sued for $10,000 each but the company only had to pay out $29,750 in the end". Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with both of those. Many thanks for all of these suggestions. It's just frustrating not to find any mention of lawsuits or insurance for those old situations where people got hurt or killed. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- The question is, whether the US case law at the turn of the 20th century would have made store keepers (for example) liable for an accident which a member of the public might have had on their premises. If so, then that risk would certainly have been insurable. A second question is whether a small company would have thought it worthwhile to buy that insurance, or take a chance and hope nothing went wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- This states that the first automotive liability insurance plan was sold in 1897 to indemnify someone against causing damage to others or injuring other people with their own car, so the concept of liability insurance must be at least that old. That's a clear liability policy. Whether that was the first liability insurance ever I don't know, but it's a date we can start looking at as a benchmark. --Jayron32 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not finding much, especially for the US which, judging by information about workmen's compensation, seems to be legislated differently in each state. In England, businesses used to be able to avoid being sued for injury on their property by means of a disclaimer notice, a loophole which was not closed until the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I imagine that compulsory liability insurance of the sort you describe is a recent phenomenon, especially in the US where these things are often more loosely regulated. I'm regretting now that I gave away my insurance textbooks. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)