Common sense, Litigation, and Hot Coffee

[Dientus]

@pandaman

@shdwlrd

I decided to start a separate thread because the line of discussion was getting off topic and I really felt there was more to add to that particular discussion.

 

 

Common sense is basically the practical application of intellect. As an example when it's raining your intellect tells you that it's raining, however it is your common sense that relates it to other information that tells you if you stay in the rain you will get wet and could possibly get sick as well.

 

I do understand that the labels on hot coffee stating the obvious, that the coffee is hot, is to avoid legal action against whomever may see an opportunity to attempt to make money off of an establishment in punitive damages through liability.

 

However I argue that common sense says that such a case should never be allowed in the courts let alone should the person be rewarded damages due to their own negligence or lack of common Sense. Again, intellect tells us that the coffee is going to be hot, common sense tells us that if we get it on our skin it could very well burn us to an extreme. Anybody who has ever drank coffee should know this. In my opinion allowing such cases and such ridiculous assignment of liability to where we do not shoulder the blame of our own actions is in part, albeit not completely, a large reason why there are such issues in Western society today where people in general cannot seem to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

I admit that Wikipedia is definitely NOT the best place for Rock solid info, however I think it suffices for our purposes as in the very case that created for North America at least the need for that label on coffee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

 I am of the opinion that she knew it was hot coffee she made the choice to take the lid off the top knowing cups are flimsy she made the choice to put it between her legs and thus any resulting damage is her own responsibility.

 

Since that is not the case in our world today, companies including the one that I work for, spend millions of dollars in ways to avoid litigation thus driving up prices for goods and services. Someone has to pay for those lawyers. I admit that that is also not the FULL story on overall product pricing, however it definitely plays a part in the end cost to consumers.

 

Opinions? Elaborations? Different Views?

 

[kerbiloid]

Just write the tutorials briefly and properly, and nobody will need a video.

For example.

Just imagine you explaining what's "animated tutorial" or "youtube movie" to this book readers.

[pandaman]

One, I think increasingly common, issue is people sue because they can.  The lawyers don't object, and even seem to encourage it, because they get their slice of the pie.

Many years ago I made a model classic car, and wanted to sell resin castings of it.  So, knowing it wasn't my original design, I sought advice to avoid potential copyright issues.  The guy I spoke to told me of a case where a child injured himself  on a model 747 - so they sued Boeing rather than the actual toy manufacturer.  I don't know the outcome, or even if it is actually true for that matter, but if it is I hope it got thrown out of court in a hurry.

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by pandaman

[StrandedonEarth]

I’m kinda split on this issue. Mostly because in my experience, commercial coffee  is a heckuva lot hotter than home-brewed coffee, presumably so it stays hot until the person is ready to drink it. So where I pour a cup of coffee at home and immediately spill it on myself, I may end up with a first-degree burn if I don’t get to the tap kinda soon. But at the drive through, the coffee is almost boiling. If I spill its an instant burn, and a second degree burn if it’s a large amount and not dealt with quickly (no tap in the car!). But that hasn’t happened to me. Maybe home coffee makers run cooler here. 

Bit I have had a similar thing happen to me. Sitting at a diner, drinking  my coffee which had cooled to a gulpable temp. I didn’t notice the waitress top up my cup, and took a big swallow, spitting it back out on the counter as it seared my mouth. My whole mouth was scorched for days because I did not expect that. But I didn’t sue…
 

Edited June 23, 2021 by StrandedonEarth
fixed mobile typos

[shdwlrd]

The want and ability to litigate here in the US is absurd.

Too many advertisements for getting paid for injuries, whether the injury was your fault, negligence, or pure act of God. Too many lawyers willing to go along because they will get paid either way. Too many judges willing to hear them and not just toss them.

As for the lack of common sense, I will say it's more purposeful ignorance. Every one by the time they're five knows that if something is hot, it could burn you. If something is sharp, it can cut you. If you fall, it can hurt. You shouldn't need a warning if something could obviously hurt you, but hear we are today. Everything needs a warning label, even the obvious stuff.

[Dientus]

2 hours ago, pandaman said:

One, I think increasingly common, issue is people sue because they can.  The lawyers don't object, and even seem to encourage it, because they get their slice of the pie.

I agree 100 percent. Afterall the laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, with over exuberant details that is in my view asinine. If the laws were written in plain speak for the common man, lawyers wouldn't be needed hardly at all. But thats where theis comes in....

 

45 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

So where I pour a cup of coffee at home and immediately spill it on myself, I may end up with a first-degree burn if I don’t get to the tap kinda soon. But at the drive through, the coffee is almost boiling. If I spill its an instant burn, and a second degree burn if it’s a large amount and not dealt with quickly (no tap in the car!). But that isn’t happened to me.

I can say, ok. Maybe the coffee is hotter than a person is normally used to. But even conceding that point, doesn't it seem like the ability to sue for an unlimited total sum of money is ridiculous? Afterall anyone involved in any level of business knows that no business ever pays for anything (ok realistically, seldom pays for much). They make their customers pay for it in many ways. 

 

One example of this is the coal ash spill of North Carolina, USA. The state government fined the company for poisoning people's water supply. Entire towns had no water and people got sick from a company's greed and carelessness. However after the fine, the local bill for electricity went UP to cover the cost of the fine and cleanup, and was ok'ed by the same governing body that issued the fine. So what was the point? More money was taken from the consumer and the company continues.

 

Another example is the Exxon Valdez spill. I watched Exxon stations have gas 10 cents more than others for many months.

 

My point is simply had you sued, I am sure you would have went for only doctor bills at best (assumption mind you) not sued for a million dollars for it. That at least in my mind is a better argument than unlimited punitive damages @StrandedonEarth

[mcwaffles2003]

Enjoy

[Cavscout74]

3 hours ago, Dientus said:

However I argue that common sense says that such a case should never be allowed in the courts let alone should the person be rewarded damages due to their own negligence or lack of common Sense. Again, intellect tells us that the coffee is going to be hot, common sense tells us that if we get it on our skin it could very well burn us to an extreme. Anybody who has ever drank coffee should know this. In my opinion allowing such cases and such ridiculous assignment of liability to where we do not shoulder the blame of our own actions is in part, albeit not completely, a large reason why there are such issues in Western society today where people in general cannot seem to take responsibility for their own actions.

I agree, it never should have gone anywhere except maybe a recommendation by the judge that the lawyer that took the original case be disbarred.    What we're getting is a population with (on average) no common sense or accountability.   There was recently in the news a woman who used glue to style her hair, then went online begging for money to fix it and was publicly discussing suing the glue manufacturer.  It fell under the radar after a few days, so I don't know where it went.  But she made well over $100,000 in donations within a few days. 

I work in an industry (aviation maintenance) where every action I take, I have to document & take personal responsibility for.   Personally, I don't have an issue with that but my mindset is increasingly at odds with the rest of society.

2 minutes ago, Dientus said:

I agree 100 percent. Afterall the laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, with over exuberant details that is in my view asinine. If the laws were written in plain speak for the common man, lawyers wouldn't be needed hardly at all. But thats where theis comes in....

Quite a few years ago, when I was a new mechanic working at a flight school, one of our "airport bums" - retired or semi-retired guys with planes in the nearby hangars that hung around our office for the free coffee - decided to write a book "The FARs* in plain English"    To write his book, he consulted with multiple lawyers which resulted in multiple interpretations of the same regulations.  Even two different lawyers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration gave different interpretations.  He managed to write the book & get it published, but had to repeatedly acknowledge that every lawyer consulted read things differently.

 

 

* FAR = Federal Aviation Regulations

[DeadJohn]

The frequency of lawsuits in the USA is partially connected to our expensive healthcare system. When someone is injured they have an incentive to sue for their medical costs, and lawsuits are often many times more expensive than the actual damages because cases take years to resolve. In many other developed nations, people have almost no direct healthcare costs and therefore have less motivation/need to sue.

In the McDonald's coffee case, the burned woman originally asked McDonald's to just pay her bills before she filed a lawsuit. From the Wikipedia article linked in the top post:

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's^[14] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800.

As a second, personal example, I recently dealt with a relatively common, non-life threatening medical issue. I'm fortunate to have good insurance and when everything's done might spend $300. Without that insurance I would have been billed around $50,000. That's fifty-thousand dollars, and there were no hospital visits or expensive medications involved. You can be damn sure I'd look to sue somebody, anybody, if I didn't have health insurance: I would either need to sue, declare bankruptcy, or face a lifetime of negative consequences for skipping treatment.

Edited June 22, 2021 by DeadJohn
too much white space at end of post

[Dientus]

10 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

In the McDonald's coffee case, the burned woman originally asked McDonald's to just pay her bills before she filed a lawsuit. From the Wikipedia article linked in the top post:

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's^[14] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800.

Point taken.

 

It may seem as if I am defending the company but I am not. I think of myself as trying to defend common sense.

 

So as a supposition then, does it appear to you that maybe the lawyers and judges are at fault for such exorbitant amounts of money? Had the company paid her medical bills none of this would have come to pass then?

 

 

Side Note: I knew this was the correct place to bring this up, even if there are opposing views the majority on this forum speak realistically and concisely with examples and it is appreciated. This is how knowledge is gained and new ways of thinking come to light, thanks to all.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, Dientus said:

So as a supposition then, does it appear to you that maybe the lawyers and judges are at fault for such exorbitant amounts of money? Had the company paid her medical bills none of this would have come to pass then?

If I remember right, this case was a jury trial, not a bench trial. The jury set the award amount. The vast majority of the award was pain and suffering and lawyers fees. (Yes, in the US you can get sue for the immediate pain suffered and any past or future hardships.) McDonald's counter sued and won back the majority of the pain and suffering amount.

Now I'm not siding with McDonald's on this one. They knew they served their coffee at near boiling temperature. They didn't care.

More than likely the payment offered was suggested by their insurance company. (Most insurance companies are notoriously cheap, and don't value a person's body or health very highly... that's a different discussion though.) If they would have covered the medical costs, the suit wouldn't of happened.

McDonald's would have started a bad precedent and opened themselves and other corporations for fraudulent claims if they did that. (I don't blame them for that thought process.) The effect that actually happened was huge payments and counter suits to recover the grossly exaggerated pain and suffering awards.

What happens now is many corporations will force a mediation or bench trail instead of a jury trial when faced with a class action or civil suit. (Most ELUA updates have been specifying this.) A mediator or judge will be more favorable to a corporation with the award amounts.

[DeadJohn]

26 minutes ago, Dientus said:

Point taken.

It may seem as if I am defending the company but I am not. I think of myself as trying to defend common sense.

So as a supposition then, does it appear to you that maybe the lawyers and judges are at fault for such exorbitant amounts of money? Had the company paid her medical bills none of this would have come to pass then?

Side Note: I knew this was the correct place to bring this up, even if there are opposing views the majority on this forum speak realistically and concisely with examples and it is appreciated. This is how knowledge is gained and new ways of thinking come to light, thanks to all.

Q: does it appear to you that maybe the lawyers and judges are at fault for such exorbitant amounts of money?

McDonald's lawyers could have made the whole thing go away for $20k. Their legal obligation was to protect McDonald's, so maybe they were right to not settle (settling could have encouraged more people to file claims) or maybe they were wrong (all of the publicity this case received may have caused other people to sue).

The woman's lawyer made more attempts to settle. The punitive damage portion of the lawsuit came in because that's often the only way to force corporations to change their behavior. If a corporation harms a lot of people, only some of them will sue, and corporations are aware of that. Punitive damages are intended to prevent corporations from flippantly treating customer injuries and an occasional lawsuit as a routine business expense.

Q: Had the company paid her medical bills none of this would have come to pass then?

Yes, assuming that part of your earlier Wikipedia link is correct.

I'm not sure which way the case should have gone, legally. In a better society, though, there never should have been any need to settle or sue. The woman's medical care should have been covered by the healthcare system regardless of the cause, and if McDonald's was at fault then they could be fined (the process of fining a company can involve lawyers, but it's a government administrative process, instead of a personal injury suit where the attorneys are motivated by profit).

With respect to "common sense", you are saying that the woman should have used common sense to not burn herself. It could also be said that McDonald's, a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and analysts behind the scenes, should be even smarter and reduce situations that reportedly lead to hundreds of serious burns per year. In any legal system and economic framework, it's smart, common-sense, and completely foreseeable that people will work within that system. McDonald's, the woman, her attorney, judge, and the jury all made sane, rational decisions given the US legal system.

The coffee spill had several factors that made the woman's burns worse. She happened to be old, and older bodies usually don't heal as well. I also read that she was wearing cotton pants that absorbed more coffee to make the burns worse. There's nothing irresponsible about being old or wearing cotton, and neither the woman nor McDonald's are to blame for that, but they combined to make the burns much worse than a typical coffee burn.

One thing that perplexes me about the case, although I'm not interested enough to research it myself, is that the coffee spilled while the woman was removing the lid to put in cream and sugar. McDonald's and every other drive-through already handles that part when I order. Did she ask to do it herself, or did McDonald's get her coffee order incorrect and set up the situation that required her to remove the lid, or maybe things were done differently when the case happening 30 years ago.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

As for the lack of common sense, I will say it's more purposeful ignorance. Every one by the time they're five knows that if something is hot, it could burn you. If something is sharp, it can cut you. If you fall, it can hurt. You shouldn't need a warning if something could obviously hurt you, but hear we are today. Everything needs a warning label, even the obvious stuff.

In the brand new world no warning stickers or so will be in use.

You will be just seeing the popup messages from your brain chip and watch out the highlighted objects of danger: hot cups, sharp knives, hidden steps, and so.

Only then you will realize that the night is dark and full of terrors how dangerous is the world surrounding you, how lucky you were to escape all these traps, and how thankful you should be to the Advanced Personal Companion Chip, who is the best and the only true friend on this horrible minefield.
 

7 hours ago, Cavscout74 said:

There was recently in the news a woman who used glue to style her hair, then went online begging for money to fix it and was publicly discussing suing the glue manufacturer.  It fell under the radar after a few days, so I don't know where it went. 

Still tries to unstick the fingers from the keyboard, can't text right now. 

Btw, someone should finally give an advice to the lawyers to sue the construction stuff manufacturer for not placing "Do not use in toilet" caution on the sandpaper.
I presume, still nobody puts it, right?
 

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

If I remember right, this case was a jury trial, not a bench trial. The jury set the award amount. The vast majority of the award was pain and suffering and lawyers fees. (Yes, in the US you can get sue for the immediate pain suffered and any past or future hardships.) McDonald's counter sued and won back the majority of the pain and suffering amount.

Can't see a problem with McDonald's at all.

They should call from the street that clown (Ronald McDonald?), bend him, and let her give him a strong kick or two, to make McDonald feel immediate pain and moral sufferring in return.
It's a normal practice since ancient times, and never failed.

 

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

They knew they served their coffee at near boiling temperature. They didn't care.

And the woman came from wild jungle where she spent all her childhood and never tried hot coffee in the coffee pubs, so was not aware.

Btw, had she taken off the cup cover with that nip which prevents a big gulp?

And yes, cup cover should be visually marked with yellow-black strip along the edge, like the construction and cargo loading sites.
To take off the cover, unstick the yellow-black striped caution band on your own risk.
 

2 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

The woman's medical care should have been covered by the healthcare system regardless of the cause, and if McDonald's was at fault then they could be fined (the process of fining a company can involve lawyers, but it's a government administrative process, instead of a personal injury suit where the attorneys are motivated by profit).

They should be counting a yearly total caused by McDonald and others' clients and correct the tax percent by tax payer categories. More expensive ones should pay higher taxes.

When the cautions and protective measures don't affect the average lifespan, they are excessive.
 

2 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

. I also read that she was wearing cotton pants that absorbed more coffee to make the burns worse.

8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

But at the drive through, the coffee is almost boiling. If I spill its an instant burn, and a second degree burn if it’s a large amount and not dealt with quickly (no tap in the car!).

Aprons.
McDonalds and other starbuckses should be selling/gifting disposable aprons or napkins for any client.

Spoiler

No napkin - no suing.
Force the culture, chomp like a sir.

***

I recall in the early 1990s it was looking shockingly funny to read the caption on the silica gel bags from the boxes with imported electronics "Do not eat".

Currently I see, that was just a little part of that.

Edited June 23, 2021 by kerbiloid

[pandaman]

I can understand the desire/need to sue if even a relatively minor accident can bring financial ruin on a family, just because of the medical expenses.

Being in the UK, I'm fortunate that I don't have to worry about that,  or the cost of calling an ambulance.  Sure, our NHS is not perfect, and does get critisism (some deserved and a some not), but for the most part it is absolutely awesome, especially when compared to many other countries.

My wife has had two (much needed) full knee replacements, at no extra charge to us, other than our regular income tax and contributions.

 

[Dientus]

10 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

With respect to "common sense", you are saying that the woman should have used common sense to not burn herself. It could also be said that McDonald's, a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and analysts behind the scenes, should be even smarter and reduce situations that reportedly lead to hundreds of serious burns per year. In any legal system and economic framework, it's smart, common-sense, and completely foreseeable that people will work within that system. McDonald's, the woman, her attorney, judge, and the jury all made sane, rational decisions given the US legal system.

I never thought to view it in terms as large as this. I actually could see this, but to me it also then removes individual responsibility. I understand modern society at the end of the day probably does need to be told what to do and what not to do but that is because in my opinion, all sense of self-responsibility has gone out the window. If we as individuals used common sense and believed that we were responsible for our own actions, then the need for big government is gone. Pipe-dream at this point I suppose.

 

And that brings up the excellent point you made of health care. I agree, the health costs incurred should have been covered regardless of who paid. But there in lies what I believe to be another issue. The fact that we should care, at least at some level, for one another and WANT our healthcare workers paid and happy. WANT to care for others injuries. To me it makes sense we do all of this because we are a social species and we NEED one another to contribute, help, and assist others.

 

[Bej Kerman]

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Just write the tutorials briefly and properly, and nobody will need a video.

For example.

Just imagine you explaining what's "animated tutorial" or "youtube movie" to this book readers.

This document is boring, however briefly it could have been written.

[Dientus]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I recall in the early 1990s it was looking shockingly funny to read the caption on the silica gel bags from the boxes with imported electronics "Do not eat".

Currently I see, that was just a little part of that.

I agree.

 

One of the biggest issues for the creation of these labels is how parents allow their children to do these things because children don't know any better and parents at least in my view from what I have seen, seem to be too lazy to teach them and do not want to give them care like we (humans) used to care for children. Children must be watched at all times. I guess on the flip side of that the modern world doesn't allow for parents to watch children all the time either since it takes two people working to survive in any comfort.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, Dientus said:

One of the biggest issues for the creation of these labels is how parents allow their children to do these things because children don't know any better and parents at least in my view from what I have seen, seem to be too lazy to teach them and do not want to give them care like we (humans) used to care for children. Children must be watched at all times. I guess on the flip side of that the modern world doesn't allow for parents to watch children all the time either since it takes two people working to survive in any comfort.

Yes, but while the engineers indeed should be overseen like overgrown kids, at the same time the real kids don't read the captions.

[DeadJohn]

7 hours ago, Dientus said:

I never thought to view it in terms as large as this. I actually could see this, but to me it also then removes individual responsibility. I understand modern society at the end of the day probably does need to be told what to do and what not to do but that is because in my opinion, all sense of self-responsibility has gone out the window. If we as individuals used common sense and believed that we were responsible for our own actions, then the need for big government is gone. Pipe-dream at this point I suppose...

"Individual responsibility" is often overrated. It works well in small groups up to 100 people where everyone knows each other, and bad actors can be identified. It falls apart in larger groups where most people are anonymous. I am theoretically a libertarian, but in practical terms I realize big government is needed because there are enough untrustworthy people.

Illnesses and injuries can sometimes be due to irresponsible behavior. However, every sick person should get treatment. Sick people without health care or sick leave have to go to work sick, and then make coworkers and customers sick. A society that encourages sick people to stay home and recover is better for everyone.

Another example of personal responsibility is home fires. I'm okay with my tax dollars paying for fire protection for everyone, regardless of how the fire started. Irresponsible people fall asleep while smoking in bed, or are bad cooks and set the kitchen on fire. Personal responsibility suggests that those people should have their house burn down. The problem with that is that the fire spreads to their more responsible neighbors.

Businesses can also be irresponsible, often because the people involved are greedy or lazy. We can't merely say that a business that dumps toxic waste will go out of business. The costs of cleanup are so high that government has to step in when the people at fault can't be fined enough to pay for it.

[Dientus]

Admittedly, I held my breath because I myself am anti-big government (to avoid labels) and believe that while yes there are untrustworthy people in a society, it also includes the government itself and I don't believe long-winded bureaucracy can solve that. I believe that's what judges are for to go on the individual case at hand.

 

However...

14 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

Illnesses and injuries can sometimes be due to irresponsible behavior. However, every sick person should get treatment. Sick people without health care or sick leave have to go to work sick, and then make coworkers and customers sick. A society that encourages sick people to stay home and recover is better for everyone.

Another example of personal responsibility is home fires. I'm okay with my tax dollars paying for fire protection for everyone, regardless of how the fire started. Irresponsible people fall asleep while smoking in bed, or are bad cooks and set the kitchen on fire. Personal responsibility suggests that those people should have their house burn down. The problem with that is that the fire spreads to their more responsible neighbors.

This is actually something that I can understand and get behind. You will get no arguments for me on these topics.

 

But concerning this ...

17 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

Businesses can also be irresponsible, often because the people involved are greedy or lazy. We can't merely say that a business that dumps toxic waste will go out of business. The costs of cleanup are so high that government has to step in when the people at fault can't be fined enough to pay for it.

I'm not entirely behind because this would be something that a business could actually pay for over time. I will explain my view using a real lifes friend situation. She got the short end of a child support stick, due to written law and her situation for years and how things turned out she ends up with a bill over $50,000 USD. the way the laws are there was no choice, someone who made minimum wage under $7 USD an hour, this is one heck of a blow. Years later she is down to just over $10,000 USD. 

 

Now I would expect a company to do the same if they couldn't afford something. When I go to the bank to borrow $20,000 USD, I am at their mercy and must do everything they ask and on time if they do in fact give me this loan. So too should the company beheld this way towards the people and the government they owe the fine to, with the people and the government dictating terms.

 

For businesses, this is rarely true. CEOs stay in place, policies only change on the surface, noone learns a lesson, as well as they raise prices on goods and services so that they can still make a large profit for their board of investors and the upper management can still make 6 digit yearly incomes.

 

In my one example using the coal ash spill, it goes even further when the state government got involved. The people had no voice in what happened, and the government okayed a price hike for those services to pay for it without the people's consent. To me that is a form of taxation without representation. The very thing that started the Boston tea party in the USA.

 

[DeadJohn]

1 hour ago, Dientus said:

I'm not entirely behind because this would be something that a business could actually pay for over time

I already wrote "The costs of cleanup are so high that government has to step in when the people at fault can't be fined enough to pay for it." After a business goes bankrupt due to the cost of cleanup, someone still needs to pay for the rest of the remediation.

It applies to mega-corporations that can afford to pay, too. They can rightfully contest the case (maybe a prior tenant or different factory up the river is the source if pollution, or maybe the soil test was invalid) and that might take a long time to resolve. Big government can pay for the cleanup now, then try to collect from the guilty parties later. That's preferable to letting the waste sit for years while the case drags through court.

1 hour ago, Dientus said:

For businesses, this is rarely true. CEOs stay in place, policies only change on the surface, noone learns a lesson

I agree that happens and it is a bad thing. We disagree on the cause, though. You seem to be blaming government because it's too powerful. I blame a government that doesn't exert its power enough, to imprison the people in charge of grossly misbehaving businesses.

If the fine for dumping toxic waste tops out at $1B with no risk of jail for those at the top, and the company is currently spending $2B to properly deal with that waste, it's "smart" for the company to start polluting. They save $2B if they don't get caught, and even if they do get caught they still save $1B (I'm simplifying this example by ignoring the impact of bad publicity).

[Dientus]

21 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

I already wrote "The costs of cleanup are so high that government has to step in when the people at fault can't be fined enough to pay for it." After a business goes bankrupt due to the cost of cleanup, someone still needs to pay for the rest of the remediation.

.

If you have ever dealt with bankruptcy Court you know the judge has to okay your bankruptcy. Doubly so with a business, and not being able to "afford something" is not always a valid reason a lot of the time. There exists many examples where small businesses have polluted the land and EPA fines cannot be removed and they cannot be dismissed through bankruptcy, this I have seen in can cite an example if you need one.

 

To continue, In my true to life example of an individual, this person had no option to go bankrupt there was no choice. They were forced to pay a certain amount regardless. And that is what I am saying can be applied to big business as well. The government paying for the cleanup is like the company taking out a loan and them making the payments back to the government is to pa y back that loan for their own mess so that they are responsible. Another example, even though the cause was different, the bailouts of 2008. They are an exact example of what I mean where corporations took bail out money (loan) from the government, however had to pay that money back over time. I see no difference in application for toxic spills and there are many examples where big corporations took money from the government to later pay them back...  so we may end up having to agree to disagree on this one.

 

25 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

I agree that happens and it is a bad thing. We disagree on the cause, though. You seem to be blaming government because it's too powerful. I blame a government that doesn't exert its power enough, to imprison the people in charge of grossly misbehaving businesses.

Maybe I didn't word what I was trying to say correctly, while yes I am against big government, in my examples I don't blame the government being too big I blame the law not being applied equally to all parties involved. Because the corporation is big enough to fund campaigns, and pay people to sit at the Capitol building and lobby for what is in their best interest, with the government being so big that it can act independently of its people which the government of USA can and does very often do ever since world war II, this is what I believe to be a big Factor. If the government were truly applying the law equally to everyone and doing its best to act upon the word of the people, then big corporations would be held more liable.

 

But I fear even in my ideal scenario, the businesses would truly never pay all of it themselves instead it would still fall on the buyers of their goods and or services. However this would help close up a lot of loopholes and rid some of the unchecked power that the government and corporations who fund it have.

 

Admittedly no solution is perfect because you always have that wild card thing called a human involved, but people being held accountable, and understanding what they are responsible for, self-responsibility and common Sense, then I honestly believe it would be far better than it currently is.

 

[Dman979]

Guys, you're skirting pretty close to the political and ideological posts part of the forum rules. If you want to talk about Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (or similar cases) that's one thing. If you want to talk about how governments respond to political pressures and the various ideologies of the players involved that's another.

Tone it down, please.

[Dman979]

Thread locked at OP request.