Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:23:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2262 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:47:30 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> 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.
Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what
its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle
radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will
have, so be bundle it up to make sure it doesn't leak.
The current alternative often ends up being that the victim pays. In
many (most?) jurisdictions in the US, if you purchase property which has
some kind of waste problem which you didn't even cause, and you didn't
know about when you purchased the property, you are responsible for
cleaning it up. Now to some extent, this is not totally unreasonable,
but you should be allowed the full extent of the legal system to attempt
to recover money from those who caused the contamination in the first
place.
Additionally, if we get the government out of the buisiness of telling
you what you MUST clean up, and doing the spending, many spills may not
get cleaned up because the cost of cleaning them up far outweighs the
potential impact. This may tend to hide some problems, but so long as we
don't shield people from liability, one also has to look at the
potential future cost of hiding the problem.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Oh come now. You're acting like it never happens that a previously-thought-unharmful stuff is later considered extremely harmful. cf Asbestos. Greatest thing since sliced bread, right up until the fourties when the studies came out. I really (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I agree with you. I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off scot (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
