Reynoldston, as you know it is called CYA. Your business and the one I work for do not compare. All we would need is one customer get hurt because we did not follow the laws and we could be down the drain. People would be surprised at some of the rules we have to follow. Ex. a mower with a hole in the deck falls under the same rules as a safety switch. In no way am I saying I agree with these rules, but it does illustrate why labor rates can get out of control. Three years ago we had a customer who tried to sue us because we gave him back a blade which we would not sharpen, because it was worn too badly. The wing was undercut and broke off, ending up in the side of his car. Claimed we should have never returned the blade to him, because it was unsafe to use. He filed the edge himself and put it back on the mower. He lost, but it still cost us money, which we could not recover because the court would not rule it was a frivolous law suit. What else can we do???
Yes and no matter what we do sooner or latter we will all be there.
Running the repair shop blind is well & good till some one gets hurt.
Even if you only work for friends, a hospital visit will result in an automatic investiation and then there are the sharks who lurk in emergency centres.
"It was his fault & I can get you $ 200,000. Just sign this form " and a distressed parent of an injured child is more than likely to just sign the form without any thought.
I do not believe in most of the back side covering that goes on because the courts will not recognise personal responsibility for your own safety.
Then you get the religious fanatics who will not accept that we are responsible for any of our own actions.
Finally, judges are all appointed from the pool of lawers and personal injury claims are big money earners for lawers so they tend to look favourably on the most absurd claims when presented by reputable lawers.
Because both our legal systems work on preceedent once one bleeding heart claim is approved it is open season.
However the seat switch is the only safety device that does in fact protect both the user and bystanders and there is no possible valid reason for defeating it.
The only partially justifiable reason is if it is too sensitive and causes the engine to stutter when traversing very rough ground at inappropriately fast speeds, but that can be rectified fairly easily.
What I do find hard to believe that is a country with an overly zealous legal system lawers are not suing face book, you tube and the individual posted for injury compensation after their idiot moron client followed some other shaved monkeys instruction then managed to injure themselves.