Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:35:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2341 times
|
| |
|
|
<FoJtsn.C9w@lugnet.com> <38850984.18212589@eclipse.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> 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 now it turns out that some exotic
> organic compound contained in the rosemary stem is carcinogenic, does
> that mean that everyone who's composted their rosemary stems is a criminal?
>
> That's very different than trying to sneak barrels of
> 1,3-methylethylketone into the public compost heap.
>
> Or did I miss something?
Mostly that this sort of thing is hard to talk about in the abstract. I
think the longer something goes, the more serious the problem has to be
before one would be able to recover damages. I also think there is a
difference between disposing of a natural, relatively unprocessed
material, and disposing of a processed chemical. If you're creating a
new chemical, I think you have a responsibility to research the possible
effects of disposal of that chemical. If you have done extensive
research, and something slips through (say your research of how the
chemical will be used suggests that it will be used in quantities of no
more than X, and you find that in those quantities, natural processes
are capable of breaking down the chemical, but then 20 years down the
road, the plant which happens to process the chemical dies off, and now
the chemical isn't being broken down), I would expect your liability to
be more limited.
The main idea though is to make sure that limits on liability are not
legislated. Allow the court review system to determine when reasonable
precautions were taken, and when perhaps someone was a little slipshod.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) OK. I can dance with that. But, the courts have done some pretty silly stuff. (Like McDonald's coffee.) how do we as a society regulate them? Just fire judges? There should be some mechanism for helping the courts be reasonable. Chris (25 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
