What does "the loss should lie where it falls" mean?

Question

What does it mean when someone says "the loss should lie where it falls"? It seems to suggest that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]What does it mean when someone says "the loss should lie where it falls"? It seems to suggest that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.[/nq]
Yeppers. Exactly that. Common term in the legal profession. If I tell you I think shares in the Channel Tunnel are a reasonable investment and you buy some and then the Tunnel Company goes bust, you stand the loss and you don't get to blame me.
Of course, many lawyers will (for a fee) disagree with that principle and take even more of your money to try to get a Judge to rule otherwise.

John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]What does it mean when someone says "the loss should lie where it falls"? It seems to suggest that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.[/nq]
Not really a loss is always bad luck, but this is not what the phrase says. It's about whether the person or organization that suffers the loss get reimbursed by someone else, or not. Is the loss shifted to someone else, or is the person stuck with it, that's the question.

If you Google on "lie where it falls", you'll turn up dozens of uses of the phrase in regards to losses, and if you read through a few, I think you'll get the idea. This page on South African law spells it out:

The issue of shifting responsibility for a loss has always been a problem in our and other legal
systems. Delictual liability has become so wide that one can be forgiven for believing that virtually any loss which one suffers can and should be shifted
elsewhere. This attitude obscures the fundamental
premise in our law that a loss should lie where it falls. It is only in certain prescribed
circumstances, which are not without limit, that a loss is able to be shifted to another.
The great Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote about the principle here: http://www.4lawschool.com/lib/commonlaw3.htm
As you'll see, whether the person was to blame for the loss or completely innocent is not the overriding factor. (In case that's what you're thinking about, in regards to "unfair circumstances" and "bad luck.")
After several dozen hits like that I finally found some that weren't about losses and liability:
Let the weed growth lie where it falls; it'll act as a moisture-retaining mulch,
In the forested areas natural debris is once again permitted to lie where it falls
the snow if left to lie where it falls
(PS - my very first thought was golf, but that phrase is "play it as it lays." Grammar which must bother those who remember the difference between "lie" and "lay.")

Best wishes Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]What does it mean when someone says "the loss should ... that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.[/nq]
[nq:1]Yeppers. Exactly that. Common term in the legal profession. If I tell you I think shares in the Channel Tunnel ... disagree with that principle and take even more of your money to try to get a Judge to rule otherwise.[/nq]
Gee, that's terrible.. I heard it being said by lawyers in relation to the Schapelle Corby drug smuggling situation.I can understand that term being used in the example you provided, but in a situation where someone does something illegal and gets to have his cake and eat it too, surely such a phrase wouldn't be considered? For example: let's say a father buys a house in the children's name, so that it looks like he doesn't have any assets in his name, so that he can receive welfare. Receiving welfare and also being permitted to receive the proceeds from the sale of the first house that would be illegal and it would simply be wrong to say "the loss should lie where it falls".

Yet the judges in England said just that! They said that where a parent buys a house in the name of their children, the law says that you are presumed to have made a gift to your children. If you never intended to make a gift and the only way to prove you had no such intention is by arguing that you did it so that you could get welfare, which proves that you never intended to make a gift, then "the loss should lie where it falls".
There's something wrong with that reasoning..

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]What does it mean when someone says "the loss should ... that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.[/nq]
[nq:1]Not really a loss is always bad luck, but this is not what the phrase says. It's about whether ... else, or not. Is the loss shifted to someone else, or is the person stuck with it, that's the question.[/nq]
Oh, I see. When I think about "the loss should lie where it falls", I see an image of a coin being tossed in the air that will ascribe responsibility on the side it falls on.. Whether it's right or wrong is another thing, but this is the image I see..
[nq:1]If you Google on "lie where it falls", you'll turn up dozens of uses of the phrase in regards to ... only in certain prescribed circumstances, which are not without limit, that a loss is able to be shifted to another.[/nq]
I see. People are indeed responsible for their own loss. But people should not be able to hold someone else responsible for a loss that the rogue caused by his immoral or unethical conduct. A loss should lie where it falls if it's on a level playing field. Does "level playing field" mean that both sides are equal and no one has an undue advantage over the other? or have I just made a fool of myself by mis-using and confusing sayings?
[nq:1]The great Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote about the principle here: http://www.4lawschool.com/lib/commonlaw3.htm As you'll see, whether the person was to blame ... phrase is "play it as it lays." Grammar which must bother those who remember the difference between "lie" and "lay.")[/nq]
Thank you for being so helpful.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Yeppers. Exactly that. Common term in the legal profession. If ... money to try to get a Judge to rule otherwise.[/nq]
[nq:1]Gee, that's terrible.. I heard it being said by lawyers in relation to the Schapelle Corby drug smuggling situation. I ... never intended to make a gift, then "the loss should lie where it falls". There's something wrong with that reasoning..[/nq]
I don't know what case you're quoting. I worked for a long time in Social Security (AmE = Welfare) and the legislation provided for us to take into account any assets which we believed the claimant had deprived himself of for the purpose of claiming benefit. We had no need to go before a court to invoke that provision.

John Dean
Oxford

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]If you Google on "lie where it falls", you'll turn ... that a loss is able to be shifted to another.[/nq]
[nq:1]I see. People are indeed responsible for their own loss. But people should not be able to hold someone else ... an undue advantage over the other? or have I just made a fool of myself by mis-using and confusing sayings?[/nq]
Well, I'm a bit confused, because your first sentence involves three parties, not two. Repeating it here:
[nq:1]But people[/nq]
Some third party who is observing and judging the situation
[nq:1]should not be able to hold someone else responsible[/nq]
The victim who is stuck holding the bag, the one with the financial loss
[nq:1]for a loss that the rogue caused by his immoral or unethical conduct.[/nq]
The rogue being the one who caused the victim the loss.

I suppose that is also the way you are envisioning it, but it's not just two parties. You understand that "responsible" means financially responsible, right? Not somehow morally to blame.
If you look again at the South African passage above, and follow the link below to the O.W.Holmes discussion, you'll see that "the loss lies where it falls" is a considered a basic principle, a fundamental premise, but it has exceptions. As it says above, "in certain prescribed circumstances..." I'm not a lawyer and I don't intend to study exactly what these exceptions are and are not, but they're there for you to read.
But yeah, if you get swindled or robbed, you're stuck with the loss. No one is obliged to reimburse you (unless you have specific insurance).
[nq:2]The great Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote about the principle here: ... bother those who remember the difference between "lie" and "lay.")[/nq]
[nq:1]Thank you for being so helpful.[/nq]
You're welcome.

Best wishes Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]What does it mean when someone says "the loss should lie where it falls"? It seems to suggest that a loss caused by unfair circumstances is bad luck.[/nq]
1. The actual sentence does not mention unfairness orluck or anything that might lead us to infer unfairness or luck.

2. In order to be say this, we must be ready to supposethe noun loss behaves semantically like nouns for real things. But it usually does not. We can have nouns for non-real or immaterial things, like interval, absence, etc. that are indeed nouns. But if we use them to replace nouns in sentences about material things, e.g.
I left the interval upstairs or My absence is striped we may find ourselves talking nonsense. The OP's sentence may be recognized jargon in some trade I
do not know, but it looks like literal nonsense.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

What does "the loss should lie where it falls" mean?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions