Subject:
|
Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:10:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
280 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
(case study #1)
> 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)).
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 officer? One of the drivers is clearly at fault, but
because it can't be narrowed beyond 8 suspects, blame gets dumped over here
instead? IMHO, the corporation is responsible because one of the employee's
is responsible, but it can't be narrowed down. You seem to be saying that if
liability can't be determined, it should be assigned.
(case study #2)
> 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.
We're in agreement here. However, why does this logic apply to a corporation,
and not a CEO?
(case study #3)
> 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.
(not the main point, but...) Quoting from the study: "Road conditions, the
driver, the situation and the condition of the rest of the vehicle are all
investigated and ruled out." Call it the tire and random chance as the two
causes, then.
> However, the companies product was indeed determined to be defective, despite
> the testing. Company (and by extension the CEO) is at least partly liable.
Same issue with study #1. I don't get the "blame can't be determined, so
we'll assign it" premise.
> 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).
Insurance is a great idea. But your analogy is flawed - the water heater is
your property (I'm assuming), so it's your responsibility. A better analogy
would be (the guy downstairs) suing the building manager for your negligence.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| James Brown wrote in message ... (...) find (...) the (...) can (...) and (...) but (...) employee's (...) if (...) The liability need only be assigned to the CEO if he is unable to make a satisfactory assignment. Also, in this case, I think all we (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
