Subject:
|
Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:49:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
> 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.
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 are talking that
whoever ends up being liable is going to be liable for is some monetary
damages (well, if we catch the driver, he should spend some time in the
slammer, but no need for the CEO to spend time in the slammer unless the
corporation [under his guidance] refuses to take responsibility). The reason
I say that the CEO is ultimately responsible is that if the corporation
refuses to take responsibility, SOMEONE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE. The best
canditate is the CEO (since his job is to RUN the company). I want to be
able to put SOMEONE in jail if the company refuses to clean up the mess and
compensate the victims. Also, in this type of situation, even if the driver
gets caught, I think the corporation is still responsible for the clean up
and compensation, though they certainly may (and should) sue the pants off
the driver.
> (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?
The CEO isn't going to be responsible here either as long as the corporation
cooperates with the investigation (which in this example, they have, to an
exemplary level in fact).
This example is an example of how the corporation SHOULD handle situations
like this.
> (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.
Is this a real life example or something constructed? I just can not believe
a tire being able to blow in such a way that it would cause a fatal accident
that the driver had NO capability to properly react to, that could not be
traced to some problem with the car, or the road, or how the driver was
driving (now if you want to throw in that a tree fell at the same time the
tire blew, and the skid that the car WILL go into brought the car under the
falling tree, ok, now we have a real "accident").
While I have not had a front tire blow, I have had a rear tire blow on the
interstate doing 75. I was able to control the van and while I used both
lanes doing so, and ran of onto the shoulder, I didn't roll the van, or
anything. The only injury was my pride (and a little bit of the nerves of
the VW bus I had just passed, he stopped to check on me, and I'm sure part
of it was that he needed to catch his breath and pulse after seeing me go
all over the road in front of him, while spraying him with rubber
fragments). Now someone with less skill might have rolled the van (there was
a steep embankment), but that would have been their fault (driving too fast
for their skill or road conditions, if you can't somewhat control your
vehicle when something goes wrong [and tires do blow], you shouldn't be
driving that fast, even if that's the speed limit [and if most people can't
control their car sufficiently to avoid a fatal accident in this type of
situation, then the speed limit is too high]).
In this case, I was actually at fault, the tire was a different size from
the the rest of the tires {and I had been warned about that, a shop had
refused to put the tire, which was the original spare, on the van, I had to
do it myself), and I was running at close to its rated max speed, and it was
a hot day.
> > 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.
I really don't know how to debate this case because it sounds so unreal. If
it's a one in a bazillion freak instance, and IS due to a flaw in the
product, sorry, the corporation is at fault, even if they tested the product
just as well as everyone else making the same product. In reality, I think
some other contributing factors would be found, in which case the
corporation is not liable, but the example you are painting, the ONLY entity
which can be liable is the corporation, so they are.
> > 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.
I agree that this is not really a good analogy. In a rental property, the
water heater is the property of the landowner I'm renting from. It is also
their responsibility to maintain unless the lease gives me responsibility.
Now I do have the responsibility to not turn the heat off so the pipes
freeze while I'm away for Christmas and things like that. I also have the
responsibility to tell the landlord that the water heater seems to be
leaking if I notice a puddle (so he can fix it before it bursts).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| (...) OK. That makes a *HUGE* difference from the arguements I was seeing earlier. The arguements I was seeing to date lead me to believe you (collective) were arguing "punish the CEO, then the company" <snipppage> (...) Ok. Going from that basis (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
