why do you have to be 18 or older.why cant you be 12 or somthing

-- William Kiraly (tk6@mindspring.com), January 21, 2001

Answers

Most likely because you haven't learned to read as yet. If you will take the time to read the other posts on this board you would know that this is a silly question. I have read every post on this board and I wish it was mandatory to read them before posting.

JustJay

-- JustJay-Captain-Three Rusty Juveniles (justjay@neo.rr.com), January 21, 2001.

to William:

The big problem is safety (I'm tempted to say Bloodsucking lawyers but I'll be a bit more rational). If anyone under 18 (legally a minor) gets injured on the show, the production company will get so bogged down in lawsuits we will never see another episode of Junkyard Wars ever again.

We don't want that to happen, do we?

Thomas

-- Thomas (trh1@cris.com), January 21, 2001.

You Tell 'Em Justjay

-- JunkMan (r1ddller@juno.com), January 21, 2001.

Just-Jay is a crabby old man. And I like him.

-- www.geocities.com/kablamotheclown (kablamotheclown@yahoo.com), January 22, 2001.

Thomas is right about the lawyers, plus the cost of insurance for minors to be on the show would be huge. I think that if they had an adult expert helping them, the expert would be "carrying" the team, in other words doing all the work. Another point to bring up is minors cannot operate certain machinery or handle chemicals. When I worked in high school as a mechanic I was not allowed to dispose of chemicals (solvents), refill propane, weld, or operate a forklift. Of course most of these rules were state ones and I can imagine England having stiffer rules than that for minors.

SM

-- Satanic Mechanic (satanic_mechanic@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.

Amen Justjay. A couple of posts below is a suggestion for prop powered car followed two posts later by an idea for a prop powered car. This board is getting ridiculous. It need large red warnings : "The Following Ideas Have Been Done.." "We don't want to hear your worthless two cents about the hosts" and "No, the kiddie winks can't play in the sandbox"

-- ChanzReed (uncleniblz@aol.com), January 23, 2001.

To make it worse, the two prop powered car posts were put in by the SAME PERSON. "I'm so important and my ideas are so amazing that I deserve to fill up the board with them!"

-- Susan G (dreamer@fsmall.net), January 23, 2001.

That is true but if the teens parents would sign a contract, how could there be a law suit?????

-- Danny McIntyre (Aceflyer419@AOL.com), January 23, 2001.

to Dan,

Signing a waiver does decrease the liability somewhat, but there are still other problems for the producers to deal with:

1) Lawyers are very good at finding loopholes. Even with a waiver, if a kid gets hurt you can be sure that they will find a way to sue. Especially if the injury is severe enough.

2) There are probably loads of regulations like federal OSHA rules about jobsite safety and mandatory safety training for participants or such. Parental waivers do not free the producers from those obligations.

3) If any kid gets hurt (or God forbid, killed), the show's reputation is going to get a hell of a black-eye.

Still, I would tend to agree with you that something should be done in the future to give teens some opportunity to be contestants. I wonder how TV shows like "Home Improvement" handle the injury liability for their children actors (the three boys who played Tim Taylor's sons regularly shoot scenes with power tools and machine tools like bandsaws).

Thomas

-- Thomas (trh1@cris.com), January 23, 2001.

In fact many states do not allow a parent to sign away a kids right to sue for injury, etc. (if they did get hurt, it counts as child abuse)

Most states (I don't know about california where the show is going to be filmed) do not allow kids to use power tools in a work situation (I know Mass and NJ don't, as all the deli help-wanted signs say "must be 18"). And doing the show does count as "employment".

Yes, you are technically breaking the law when you pay an under-18 kid not your own to mow the lawn, even if they provide the lawnmower.

In general waivers do allmost nothing to reduce liability exposure. Yes, the injured party will find it more difficult (but not impossible) to sue, but the insurance company stuck with the hospital bills is not so constrained. They didn't sign no stinkin waivers, can say to the penny the amount of damages, and have lawyers on salary.

They routinely sue (they call it "subrogation", it doesn't cost that much, and the fear of punitve awards, some will just settle. Oh yea, the injured is obligated by the contract (policy) to not interfere with such things, even if they think it was simply their stupidity. Hurt yourself, and say in the deposition "I was an idiot", and the health insurance company can stick you, the injured with the bill. Things like that "legendary" McD's suit were originally brought by the victims health insurance company, not the injured.

In fact this is why it's cheaper to insure in the UK -- The health system is nationalized, and doesn't sue for cost recovery.

Oh yea, the huge nubers (which are often reduced on appeal) are supposed to act like a fine - something to punish a company for its actions. To work, fines have to be proportional to the resources of the guilty party. A $5,000 fine will do a lot to deter you, but for GM, its far less than they spent on paperclips that morning.(Hell its less than the cost of the bottle of wine the legal team will drink at the lunch held (and billed) after the judgement is read.) For a fine to hurt a large businessman, it has to be a figure formidible enough that it has to be mentioned in the annual report. For Exxon, a $100,000 fine can be "hidden" in petty cash. You want to punish, it has to make a one cent difference in that quarters earnings/share.

-- Jeff - The NERDS (dp@the-nerds.org), January 24, 2001.

The UK also has LOSER PAYS on lawsuits. That keeps the lawyers from chasing ambulances quite as much as the do here.

-- Stephen A. Binion (Stephenbinion@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.