To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3810
3809  |  3811
Subject: 
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:47:30 GMT
Viewed: 
4851 times
  
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 
> > If, in addition to whatever
> > the company could be sued for, the president, CEO, board of directors,
> > and potentially stock holders could be held jointly and severally
> > liable, companies would never hurt people in ways that could come back
> > to haunt them.
> 
> Does that responsibility follow them from job to job too? What about when
> they've retired? If the answer is 'no' to either of them, then I don't • think
> that will work.


For things done while they were in power, sure. Although I'm not sure how
statute of limitations should play in, though the only things which should
have a statute of limitations are things for which the effect is relatively
minor and temporary (i.e. if you wait 5 years to sue over the loss of a
single days work back then, sorry, on the other hand, if 20 years down the
line, science is finally able to identify that the chemical that company X
spilled was the cause of 100 deaths, the officers of company X (at that
time) should be held responsible, the company itself should also be held
responsible).

Frank



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Ack! I don't like that. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of personal liability, but that ranks as an accident, if I understand you. We believe (don't we?) that the herb, rosemary is safe, so we dispose of it willy nilly. Twenty years from (...) (27 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Why should they be responsible if there were no way company X could reasonably have known chemical X was lethal? That's just random killing.[1] Jasper [1] Of careers, and possibly the people affected as well, as a direct consequence. (27 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (27 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR