Subject:
|
Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:23:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
302 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > 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.
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>
> 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.
Ok. Going from that basis (someone must be responsible) then yes, the CEO is
probably a better choice than the owners or stockholders - who, all other
things being equal, are the ones technically responsible, being the owners.
However, I don't buy the arguement that a company can't be ultimately
responsible, simply because I can't throw it in jail. If the company refuses
to co-operate, there are a huge variety of actions that can be taken, most of
which would be far more effective at galvanizing action than throwing the CEO
in jail. Freeze accounts, seize assests, prevent movement across borders, to
name just a few. What is to prevent a company from firing the CEO that just
got tossed in jail?
I guess we're coming up against a philosophical differnence here. You feel
responsibility must ultimately fall to an individual, while I have no problems
with the concept that a group of people can be held responsible for the
actions of that group.
> > (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).
Actually, my question was unclear, sorry. More accurately: Why can a
corporation be excused of responsibility for (something they had no idea would
lead to harm) while a CEO can't be?
In case #1, the CEO had NO idea that following accepted business practises
would lead to a negligent driver, in case #2, the corporation had NO idea
their product caused cancer.
> > (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").
It's constructed, obviously. <shrug> If a tree is necessary for you to
accept random chance, then a tree.
<snip annecdote>
> > > 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.
That was kinda the point.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Corporate vs Individual liability
|
| James Brown wrote in message ... (...) is (...) Well, the owbers or stockholders are responsible also, though in many cases a stockholder's responsibility is less since he isn't directly running the company they way the CEO is. (...) refuses (...) (...) (24 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 ... (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
