Subject:
|
Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:36:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
> <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.
Corporation and by extension CEO is responsible. It seems very clear that
the spill was caused by one of the company trucks, their record keeping,
while meeting industry standard, is insufficient to nail a specific
employee. The company should at a minimum establish some procedures to find
out who is causing the spills (since they are likely to continue unless the
investigation has scared off the guilty driver(s)).
> 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.
Assuming investigations turn up no evidence which was ignored or covered up,
no fault can be assigned to the corporation, though they could still
possibly have judgments made against them, but the fact that they were
proactive in finding out what went wrong is going to help their defence a
lot. It might be a good idea for them to go even further, and contribute
money to charities and research organizations related to cancer.
> 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.
There may not be enough information here. Driver would appear to be at least
partially at fault, and/or vehicle design may be partially at fault. A tire
blowing out should not be the sole cause of a fatal accident. However, the
companies product was indeed determined to be defective, despite the
testing. Company (and by extension the CEO) is at least partly liable. This
is what insurance is for (or do you think you shouldn't be liable if your
water heater fails and floods the apartment below [which could be in some
ways at least similar, though obviously you aren't the manufacturer of the
water heater] - my renters insurance provides coverage for this - seems like
a good idea to me).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: (case study #1) (...) Corporation, yes. CEO? This is obviously where we are disagreeing. How can liability be assigned essentially at random to an individual? Why the CEO and not some other company (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| <this is in follow up to another conversation, but is being re-threaded for clarity. (URL) > 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 (...) (25 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
