Subject:
|
Corporate vs Individual liability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:11:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
205 times
|
| |
|
|
<this is in follow up to another conversation, but is being re-threaded for
clarity. http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/?lugnet.off-topic.debate:3963 >
OK, here are three case studies. In each of these studies, I don't feel that
any individuals should be held liable. I have gotten the impression that, all
other things being equal, you feel the CEO of the companies in question should
be held liable. "You" in this case is refering to several people who have
collectively conveyed that impression to me.
1: A community investigates a rising illness rate, and finds that there is an
unusually high incidence of chemical X in the local environment. It is
investigated, and the root cause is reliably tracked to a company that ships
tanker trucks of chemical X along the nearby highway. The level of chemical X
in the area indicates that there was either a spill from one or two trucks, or
a minute amount of leakage from all trucks. A reliable third party inspects
the trucks on a regular basis (and does so again as part of the investigation)
and rules out the second possibility. The environmental impact indicates that
the chemical entered the environment sometime during a six-month period within
the last year.
It is the shipping company's practice for the driver to record shipping
weights and levels in the trucks based on weigh scales at both ends of each
run. These numbers are recorded on paper by the driver, and electronically at
the scales. The scale records are considered stale after three months, and
deleted, while the paper record is filed and kept as a permanent record. This
is in line with other shipping companies, and follows industry standards and
regulations.
During the course of the investigation, it becomes clear that the permanent
record will always have a certain degree of variance (from load weight to dump
weight) because of environmental differences (temperature, feet above sea
level, etc) between the two locations. This unavoidable variance, combined
with the fact that the electronic records go stale after three months, would
give an unscrupulous driver an opportunity to fudge the numbers and hide a
spill, or even a succession of spills.
There are 8 drivers that made the run during the six month period when the
spill likely occurred. Six of them made the run routinely, and two did it to
cover a vacation of one of the regular drivers. Evidence presented during the
investigation makes it likely that one (or more) of the drivers deliberately
covered up a spill, but all of them claim innocence, and there is no clear
evidence against any one driver.
2: A company manufactures a product, similar to a number of other products
currently available. It is extensively tested, and determined to be safe by
all current testing methods. It is marketed, and becomes a common household
item. A decade after this product enters the marketplace and is commonplace,
new testing methods become available, and the company discovers that this
product likely causes cancer. They pull this item from the market and set
about raising public awareness. The measures they take are sufficient and
immediate. However, with this awareness now out there, several cases of
cancer can now be traced back directly and reliably to this company.
3: A vehicle spins out of control, and the driver is killed in the resulting
accident. A thorough investigation, combined with several reliable
eyewitnesses, points to the right front tire exploding as the cause. Road
conditions, the driver, the situation and the condition of the rest of the
vehicle are all investigated and ruled out.
The tire company has rigorous quality control, and an outstanding safety
record - well above that of any other company in the field. An investigation
is conducted (which is audited and tracked by a neutral third party), and it
determines that the tire was indeed defective.
Sufficient evidence is found to state clearly that the company is at fault.
Much of the evidence is inconclusive by itself, and only taken as a body does
it indicate negligence on the part of the company. Beyond this, not enough of
the evidence points to any single cause (as in: employee negligence, testing
procedures, work process, etc) to reliably isolate that cause from the others.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| James Brown wrote in message ... (...) that (...) all (...) should (...) an (...) ships (...) chemical X (...) or (...) inspects (...) investigation) (...) that (...) within (...) at (...) This (...) and (...) permanent (...) dump (...) would (...) (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
