AtomicCEO Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Maybe if you had to manage an organization you would feel otherwise. You can't know what all of your people are doing all of the time. People make stupid mistakes. Based on your theory, anyone who has haver done drugs, or ever been drunk should be either unemployed or self employed. I manage a department. I just recently I told my guys not to hire a particular tech anymore because I know he has a drug problem and he'll fall off a ladder. Your second and third sentences are retarded, but you know that. Those are the same thing. Leave the financial jargon to us financial nerds. TIA Apparently since you've had to explain yourself through 5 posts... the difference is only important if you are a financial nerd. To most people, income is the amount of receivables you have... as in "household income". Follow your own advice and leave the financial jargon amongst you financial nerds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Same scenario, and the driver doesn't stop for the 40, but still has the accident, and it is not due to mechanical failure but due to his own actions are lack there of, why should the company be on the hook for it? Being a business owner is a risk/reward endeavor: not reward/reward. The company picked that guy and decided to put him on the road; the company is the one who (hopefully) profits off his efforts. But I understand where you are coming from, and so does the law. That's why "foreseeability" is generally a key element in most tort claims. Edited June 25, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Exxon knew the captain had a drink problem, period. That made him a risk that they chose to take. They lost. The guy was hammered on the job, and Exxon knew it was a problem. Hence, why they lost the lawsuit. The facts are not in dispute. Apparently, Perch feels that the facts are in dispute. Weird. Perch, this isn't about guilt or innocence anymore. The guilt was established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Perch, the employer reaps the most benefits from a successful company, using labor paid whatever the market dictates, right? And that is as it should be. Greatest risk gets greatest profit. Why, therefore, should employers not reap the biggest penalties when things go wrong (that they could reasonably prevent / cure)? If they could prevent / cure it with the knowledge they have, then I would say the company is responsible, but if they had no way of knowing there was a problem why are they responsible? I don't even have a problem with punitive damages if a company continues to do something harmful after knowing it is harmful, within reason, that being said it should not be like a winning lotter ticket for the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) So, in order for companies to better protect society and the environment you would be all for companies to have full access to employees medical histories, so that they can know if there is a history of drug or alcohol abuse, if the possible hire has sleep apnea, or something else that could possibly impair them, and if they do, you are saying in order for companies to protect society and environment they can tell a person that they are not being hired because of what is in there medical history without fear of litigation. What are we to do with all the unemployed druggies, drunks, and other people with medical problems? I think that employers are doing just fine with the system as it is. once again... profit = the good things employees do - the bad things employees do. Edited June 25, 2008 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Apparently, Perch feels that the facts are in dispute. Weird. Perch, this isn't about guilt or innocence anymore. The guilt was established. I'm not talking about this case in particular. I'm talking in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Apparently, Perch feels that the facts are in dispute. Weird. Perch, this isn't about guilt or innocence anymore. The guilt was established. guilt wasn't established, tort liability was. man, you suck at semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Being a business owner is a risk/reward endeavor: not reward/reward. The company picked that guy and decided to put him on the road; the company is the one who (hopefully) profits off his efforts. But I understand where you are coming from, and so does the law. That's why "foreseeability" is generally a key element in most tort claims. The problem is most cases like this get settled, because no one wants to be the next McDonalds. I think that employers are doing just fine with the system as it is. once again... profit = the good things employees do - the bad things employees do. Some employers do well and some don't. Large settlements and verdicts are much more likely to force small businesses to close than they are large corporations, so you just strengthen the large corporations by doing away with the competition. How likely is a business to offer benefits if their liability insurances jumps 25% because of some knucklehead? Who do these punitive damages help? Almost half of them go to the lawyer right? Again, I'm not against punitive damages in cases were a company repeatedly over looks a risk and shrugs, but not on a first offense. The only people these things help are the lawyers and the few people who just cashed in the lotto ticket. The employees or stockholder, or both of the company slapped with them end up being hurt, but hey they have deep pockets right? Thats what happens in a law suit, everyone and anyone that is remotely involved gets named, in the hopes of settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 as in "household income". Follow your own advice and leave the financial jargon amongst you financial nerds. Okay but since we aren't talking about household's in this thread, yer still wrong. Now excuse me while I polish my calculator watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The problem is most cases like this get settled, because no one wants to be the next McDonalds. Yeah, that "hot coffee" lawsuit put them right out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The problem is most cases like this get settled, because no one wants to be the next McDonalds. Some employers do well and some don't. Large settlements and verdicts are much more likely to force small businesses to close than they are large corporations, so you just strengthen the large corporations by doing away with the competition. How likely is a business to offer benefits if their liability insurances jumps 25% because of some knucklehead? Who do these punitive damages help? Almost half of them go to the lawyer right? Again, I'm not against punitive damages in cases were a company repeatedly over looks a risk and shrugs, but not on a first offense. The only people these things help are the lawyers and the few people who just cashed in the lotto ticket. The employees or stockholder, or both of the company slapped with them end up being hurt, but hey they have deep pockets right? Thats what happens in a law suit, everyone and anyone that is remotely involved gets named, in the hopes of settlement. Punitive damages are intended to encourager les autres. The point is that other companies looking on will take note and ensure they don't find themselves in the same position. Look at how much your company spends on safety - sure, you're a good guy so you want to keep your workers safe but as you well know, construction is full of short-cut cheapskates who will risk their workers lives rather than take proper measures as you do. Don't you agree that those companies should face punitive damages as well as actuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yeah, that "hot coffee" lawsuit put them right out of business. No, but suits against small companies very well could, and you know as well as I do how much people ask for even against small companies. In most cases insurance will pick up the tab, but then premiums go up, and the difference has to be made up somewhere right. Where do you think it will be made up? One of four things will happen. One, employee compensation / benefits get cut, two they pass the cost on to the consumer, or three they pass the cost on their investors, or they go out of business, leaving a void for a larger corporation to come in and fill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Punitive damages are intended to encourager les autres. The point is that other companies looking on will take note and ensure they don't find themselves in the same position. Look at how much your company spends on safety - sure, you're a good guy so you want to keep your workers safe but as you well know, construction is full of short-cut cheapskates who will risk their workers lives rather than take proper measures as you do. Don't you agree that those companies should face punitive damages as well as actuals? Yes if they knowingly put someone at risk. If I send a guy up on the red iron with out a harness, not only should I face punitive damages, but I should face criminal charges. That said, if I send someone up on the red iron with a harness, and documented training, and in the past he has always used it properly but today he's tired or thinking about his wife sleeping with his brother and doesn't take the time to tie off, why should I be held responsible? OSHA won't even cite me, but you can bet a huge lawsuit is headed my way, and you can bet the insurance company is going to settle, because there are too many people out there that will look at his estranged wife with her crocodile tears and then look at my company and assume we have deep pockets so what will it hurt. Estranged wife and her lawyer win the lotto, the guy that doesn't tie off dies, and me who tried to do everything by the book is paying the bill. Edited June 25, 2008 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) No, but suits against small companies very well could, and you know as well as I do how much people ask for even against small companies. In most cases insurance will pick up the tab, but then premiums go up, and the difference has to be made up somewhere right. Where do you think it will be made up? One of four things will happen. One, employee compensation / benefits get cut, two they pass the cost on to the consumer, or three they pass the cost on their investors, or they go out of business, leaving a void for a larger corporation to come in and fill. Risk/reward, my man. Those lawsuits are just part of the free market doing its thing. Though, I fully agree that frivolous lawsuits *should* be punished with all the wrath of a charging rhino. But legitimate lawsuits must be allowed as part of a free market. Now, when it comes to punitive damages, I tend to agree with you. I mean, they serve a valid public policy but shouldn't be the functional equivalent of a winning lottery ticket. I've often thought that a portion of "big" punitive damages should be funneled back into government to reimburse it for the various costs of providing a functioning legal system and/or gubment aid and services to tort victims. Edited June 25, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes if they knowingly put someone at risk. If I send a guy up on the red iron with out a harness, not only should I face punitive damages, but I should face criminal charges. That said, if I send someone up on the red iron with a harness, and documented training, and in the past he has always used it properly but today he's tired or thinking about his wife sleeping with his brother and doesn't take the time to tie off, why should I be held responsible? You shouldn't - and most likely you won't be. As Yo said earlier, these cases aren't automatic open and shut. Employees that put themselves at risk as you describe are not likely to win their case. Side note: Unfortunately in our business, I think such an accident still gets counted even though you might get a clean bill of health from OSHA, so the insurance company puts your premiums up anyway. Bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Yes, because Exxon deliberately spilled oil. How can a company, any company be responsible for everything their employees do? You can try your best, but you can't monitor employees 24 hours a day. You run background checks, you do periodic drug testing etc.., but people screw up, is that a company's fault? You do know that Exxon didn't employ the mandatory safety system that would have prevented this spill....even if they still had a drunk captain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) You shouldn't - and most likely you won't be. As Yo said earlier, these cases aren't automatic open and shut. Employees that put themselves at risk as you describe are not likely to win their case. Side note: Unfortunately in our business, I think such an accident still gets counted even though you might get a clean bill of health from OSHA, so the insurance company puts your premiums up anyway. Bastards. It happened to me. OSHA did not site us. The police found him at fault. The guy had Josh Gordon in his system and didn't tie off. He was not my employee, but the employee of a subcontractor. He came on site two days after a random drug test. He was given safety training the day before the accident by my safety officer. He didn't tie off, he removed a safety equipment below him, and ended up dying. His wife who he hadn't lived with in over a year ended up getting about 3 times what he would have made in his lifetime. The next year I remember discussing whether or not to cut some of our benefits to our employees to pay for the additional cost of liability insurance. We ended passing as much of it as we could along to the consumers, and eating the rest. Edited June 25, 2008 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You do know that Exxon didn't employ the mandatory safety system that would have prevented this spill....even if they still had a drunk captain? I did not know that. I was a 15 at the time of the spill. Who is responsible for employing the safety system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Your love of lawyers knows no bounds. I find myself liking you, until I remember your occupation, and I like my lawyer. I'm actually going to to take a trip with my lawyer tomorrow, so that I can hopefully get paid the $995,946 a bunch of doctors have owed me for the last 4 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I have to say, it does seem pretty out of whack when punitive damages are 10x compensatory damages. compensatory damages are the actual loss caused by the defendant's negligence, as proven in court. awarding damages beyond the actual harm done is a funky concept to begin with, but especially when the amount is that far out of synch with the actual loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I have to say, it does seem pretty out of whack when punitive damages are 10x compensatory damages. compensatory damages are the actual loss caused by the defendant's negligence, as proven in court. awarding damages beyond the actual harm done is a funky concept to begin with, but especially when the amount is that far out of synch with the actual loss. Yeah, but "They've got the money". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I have to say, it does seem pretty out of whack when punitive damages are 10x compensatory damages. compensatory damages are the actual loss caused by the defendant's negligence, as proven in court. awarding damages beyond the actual harm done is a funky concept to begin with, but especially when the amount is that far out of synch with the actual loss. Not really. Otherwise a company could justify building unsafe products because the savings from things like lead paint could outweigh any actual damages. Punitive damages are meant to send a message and protect the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 It happened to me. OSHA did not site us. The police found him at fault. The guy had Josh Gordon in his system and didn't tie off. He was not my employee, but the employee of a subcontractor. He came on site two days after a random drug test. He was given safety training the day before the accident by my safety officer. He didn't tie off, he removed a safety equipment below him, and ended up dying. His wife who he hadn't lived with in over a year ended up getting about 3 times what he would have made in his lifetime. The next year I remember discussing whether or not to cut some of our benefits to our employees to pay for the additional cost of liability insurance. We ended passing as much of it as we could along to the consumers, and eating the rest. So did the jury find your company in some way responsible? Can't see how. Seems to me you might need to get in touch with Yo, 'cos your lawyer doesn't seem to be working too good. I take it insurance covered the cost (sounds like it might be around a million bucks the way you describe it) and then hammered you through the premiums, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Not really. Otherwise a company could justify building unsafe products because the savings from things like lead paint could outweigh any actual damages. Punitive damages are meant to send a message and protect the public. Exactly. Otherwise there is no incentive at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I have to say, it does seem pretty out of whack when punitive damages are 10x compensatory damages. compensatory damages are the actual loss caused by the defendant's negligence, as proven in court. awarding damages beyond the actual harm done is a funky concept to begin with, but especially when the amount is that far out of synch with the actual loss. Punitive damages must be big enough to deter the behavior sought to be deterred. Therefore, the amount of punitive damages must outweigh the economic benefit of engaging in that behavior. Viewed from that perspective, the amount of punitive damages has no relationship whatsoever to the actual economic loss suffered by the tort victim. For that reason alone I've always felt that the benefit of punitive damages should not inure to the benefit of the tort victim because it is largely change as to the identity of the tortfeasor who harmed the victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.