Clutching at straws

I think this is very much a case of that.  3 families are preparing to sue the Victorian government and its roads department for allegedly failing to prevent the deaths of loved ones who jumped from a bridge, in these cases Melbourne’s Westgate bridge.

On February 5 2009, 17-year-old Allem Halkic took his own life by jumping from the bridge after being bullied on a social networking website.  His family and two others are preparing joint lawsuits against authorities for failing to establish anti-jump barriers.   Father Ali Halkic said many more lives would have been saved if authorities had acted earlier and if better camera surveillance identified at-risk people on the bridge:

"Allem was our only son and we know at his moment of weakness the West Gate called his name,"

"But he should never have been able to walk that (1.2km) distance to his death and VicRoads, knowing how many lives have been lost, should have had measures in place to prevent these types of deaths."

he said.

A 2004 coroner’s report recommended anti-suicide fencing and senior police had for several years urged the Government and VicRoads to install the barriers. The State Government announced in December 2008 that it would erect safety barriers on the bridge, and temporary barriers were erected early last year (prompted no doubt by the death of 4 year old girl Darcey Freeman whose father allegedly threw her from the bridge – a year ago tomorrow).

I have no problems with governments, companies and individuals being held accountable for their negligence.  However in this case I think its stretching things too far to claim the owners of a bridge had a duty of care to prevent people wishing to kill themselves by jumping off it from doing so.  Sure, if there was evidence that people were at risk of accidentally falling from the bridge, yes there is a duty of care.  But there is no evidence that has ever happened, the people in question deliberately went there to kill themselves and in so doing circumvented the safety measures in place for normal bridge users.  It strikes me that these families are looking to blame someone for the tragedy they have experienced, and conveniently, that someone happens to be the party most likely to have the deepest pockets.

One thing mentioned was that since the safety barriers were erected the number of “incidents” on the bridge have been virtually eliminated.  I wonder if it means suicides were prevented, or it just diverted those individuals to finding another means of killing themselves?