If it was any lower do you think the police will hesitate to do it again? I don't 1 million sends a loud enough message to the police, IMO.
I see your basic point but the size of the award is way out of proportion to the "damages". Getting pepper sprayed when conducting acts of civil disobedience (and I know that is a separate debate) creates a few hours of pain from the spray. How does that equate into this kind of money? Just seems way too high to me and also sends a message that their actions "pays".
Agree, but part of the damages are probably for violation of civil rights -- still way too high in my opinion,.
It wasn't protesters actions that paid, it was the police action that "pays," so hopefully police will not take that action again under those circumstances. If you believe that part of the legal system is to shape society, then a settlement (or jury result) of this nature is helping to do it. 1 million, especially if they have to lay off officers which I doubt, shuld be a suffcient mesage that this type of conduct is not acceptable. If the protesters all got a thousand bucks for being peppered sprayed and going through a few hours of pain (that may be high in your mind), that would be an amount to the police department taht could be written off as nominal. If treated like that, do you think the police would hesitate to do it again? In a way police get the last laugh as they spray these annoying sitting ducks and all it will cost department is a nominal write off. I don't think that is the message our judical system should send. I get your point and maybe the prostesters getting all that money isn't fair either. Maybe they should take half or it and donate to some victim's fund.
Fascinating point. That would make a great thread topic. The legal system is not to shape society. Especially in areas of tort.
I disagree. Our courts shape society and what is and is not acceptable. In Oregon it's utilzed through punative damages which is more about punishing the conduct than compensating for the injuries. Really it is facinating. Courts through their laws and rulings tell us what conduct is and is not allowed. Punishing people or companies for bad conduct should make other people and companies stop and think before acting. If it was just how much their actions were hurting people, then companies hurting people becomes a cost benefit analysis . . . and it should never be a cost benefit analysis when compnaies decide to do something unlawfully.
Of course it should. And it still is. It's just the cost side of the analysis has been increased because of tort actions. Ed O.
Really, you think cost benefit anaylsis is proper by companies even if people are getting hurt? I don't think it should be thought of like that. I suppose companies aren't bound to any ethics, but they should be.
114 people died building the hoover dam. Should they have built it? Or do you think there was a cost benefit analysis made?
I think every possible step should be taken to avoid deaths in that situation. Accidents happen and if you enter a high risk job, you should know the possible consequences and hopefully be compensated for the risk. My turn: Ford discovers a brake defect on thier most popular vehicle. Financial analysis says it will cost three times as much to do a recall as it will to pay for the injuries and deaths that they have to settle in any lawsuits. Should Ford not do a recall?
"Every possible step" means not building the dam. I don't think that they should, no. The costs come from somewhere: retirement accounts of investors, taxes paid to government, research and development, etc., etc. I don't think that the company should change its analysis because of the possibility of death or injury. Anyone who's injured or killed should be compensated accordingly, of course. Ed O.
OK every possible step to avoid death while getting the project done, better? If you want to avoid any deaths, you would not have police dept, fire dept, crab fishing And I completely disagree (but respect) your position on the Ford situation. If the deaths could have been avoided, even if it cost the company more money, than they should be required to take those steps to avoid the deaths. That is what I would want in society, but understand if some people and big business don't think society should work like that.
People get into accidents in their cars and die. Should the automakers stop making cars? In fact, one of the funniest things is Ralph Nader became famous for his book, "unsafe at any speed" in which he went after Chevy for the Corvair's supposedly being unsafe. Lots of pomposity and so on. Turns out the corvair was no less safe than other similar cars/makes/models made the same years. And the really unsafe cars were the corvettes and z-28s. People go 150 MPH in those and go out with a real bang. http://voices.yahoo.com/was-corvair-really-unsafe-any-speed-498093.html?cat=27 And now the question: Was the Corvair really unsafe at any speed? The answer: The 1960-1963 Corvair models targeted by Nader were at least as safe as comparable car models sold in those years. This conclusion, ironically, came from a 1972 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
You know, I answered your question. You never answered mine. Can I assume you do not think Ford should recall the cars even if they know the defect could likely lead to fatal accidents because the recalls will cost more?
I think ford should not keep it a secret that there's some safety issue with a vehicle they produce. Who pays for the fix (or not) is up for debate.
