Comment by calambrac | Hacker News Reader

Comment by calambrac | Hacker News Reader

The part about the medical malpractice lawsuits makes the article worth the read, but wtf is up with his opening anecdotes?

I was instantly furious. I pulled out fast to chase the other car, leaning on my horn and flashing my lights. Finally, the car stopped and I pulled up right behind him, still honking. We both got out of our cars.

Really? Because you almost pulled out in front of the guy? Why is he the one apologizing to you, again?

A friend of mine, Paul Rosenfield, was skiing with his six-year-old son Yonah when Yonah fell. It was not a terrible fall, but the binding didn't release and Yonah broke his leg. After an emotionally wrenching day spent in the emergency room tending to his child, Paul went to the shop to return the skis and speak with the owner.

Your kid breaks his leg skiing, just like a trillion other kids every winter, and you march up to the guy asking for what sounds like evidence you can take to court, wtf do you think his reaction is going to be? That he's going fall all over himself to admit that he screwed up when he probably doesn't remember your kid and probably honestly thinks he did nothing wrong? Like he hasn't seen a million assholes just like you who do want more than an apology?

Your kid breaks his leg skiing, just like a trillion other kids every winter, and you march up to the guy asking for what sounds like evidence you can take to court, wtf do you think his reaction is going to be? That he's going fall all over himself to admit that he screwed up when he probably doesn't remember your kid and probably honestly thinks he did nothing wrong? Like he hasn't seen a million assholes just like you who do want more than an apology?

You have just laid out the causality dilemma of this whole situation. Before the ski shop owner will own up to his mistakes, he must be convinced that the average patron is not confronting him to gather data for a lawsuit. Before the average person will forgo a lawsuit, he must be able to get a straight story from the ski shop manufacturer. Both parties enter into the confrontation with a defensive posture, expecting it to escalate, and so that is precisely what it does.

The author's point is to diffuse this sort of reaction, by explaining that all of this knee-jerk defensiveness is counter-productive, expensive, and becomes more about sabotaging the other person and less about resolving the original issue with a minimum of fuss. The problem is that when you start from the presumption that your customers are "a million assholes", the conclusion is already set in stone; you have already made it about these people being litigious assholes, and so that's what they will become. There is another option, but someone has to be willing to risk that option, go against conventional wisdom, and be the one to diffuse the tension before it escalates beyond repair.

By the author's own examples, going against conventional wisdom seems to work well. I'm not surprised, it usually does.

"he must be convinced that the average patron is not confronting him to gather data for a lawsuit"

Well, convinced that few enough patrons are that the average cost of apologizing to this patron is low, which would mean essentially no lawsuits at all.

Of course you're right that this is the fundamental dilemma, and I generally agree with what you (and the author) are saying.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that it cuts both ways: If you know it's a litigious society, you have to be aware of what's going to be in the other person's mind when you flex your "I was wronged" muscles. Marching up to someone who isn't cut-and-dry responsible for wronging you and demanding an apology, that's a really assholish thing to do.

Before the average person will forgo a lawsuit

I really hope that the average person thinks of a lawsuit as a last resort, rather than as something to forgo.

"Really? Because you almost pulled out in front of the guy? Why is he the one apologizing to you, again?"

I don't know about where you live, but here in FL I go very slow when backing out of a parking space because the visibility is bad. If I had a nickle for every time someone flew by in an attempt to be "first" I could quit my job. Would it be that hard to yield to the drive in the blind position and make sure you both go safely on your way? That's what I do and it usually takes only 3 to 5 seconds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com