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: 
2192 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 (...) (24 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. (24 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 (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

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