Economic harm

[Rokenn]

The thread about the pilot making the bomb joke brought another issue to my mind. As I stated in my last post there he may not have hurt anyone physically, but he did cause econmic harm to airline, airport, and passengers of the cancelled flight. Now in a fairly high profile event like this the parties can seek redress in civil court for thier loss. But there are many more everyday situations that can cause this sort of economic harm. For example the nitwit that is so busy shaving, drinking his coffee, and tuning the radio during the morning commute who then cause and accident causing hundreds of people to be late for appts, work, etc... Do you thikn this person should be responsible for these losses? And if so what kind of system would it take to fairly and quick resolve these sorts of disputes?

[Timber Loftis]

Sure, individuals should be responsible for real, verifiable loses. We have a vehicle for that -- it's called a tort lawsuit, and there are at least 31 flavors. If the harm they cause doesn't merit going through a lawsuit, then it really doesn't merit any sort of societal action to redress it, now does it. Just to be clear, NO NEW LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!! NO NEW CRIMES!! NO NEW FINES!!

Now, as for the egregious wasting of the government's money, there is already a vehicle for redressability -- paying the cost of the public good. This is already assessed in many states to those who, through their own stupidity, cause the need to be rescued. Same concept would work here.

But, what I really want is for the idiot federal workers (and prosecutors) who blew an off-the-cuff jest out of proportion, to pay ME my TAX MONEY spent on their efforts to jerk off and screw around.

[johnny]

Explain please HOW he caused the airline damage. If the uptight security didn't arrest him, they didn't have to cancel the flight. He had no bomb in his shoe, so why keep him in custody ?

[Faceman]

there's a very wise saying that goes:

"sh** happens"

you can't always blame somebody for damage that occurs to you

everybody makes a mistake sometimes and every mistake made affects a lot of persons in SOME way. but common practice is to only let someone pay for the direct damage he has caused because else it would be blown out of proportion.

If for example someone causes an accident which causes a traffic jam which causes a corporate guy to appear late at a meeting which causes the company to miss a deal which causes their stock to drop...
would you really want him to pay
- the direct damage
- compensation for the emotional stress of the corp. guy
- the money the corp. is now worth less at the stock exchange
- the therapist bills for the corporate officials
- ...

just because he forgot to look on the right before turning?
"bad things happen" and you can't always nail them to one guy and make him pay
because - all other reasonable arguments aside - he probably CAN'T pay. Now where's the point in making him a slave who hasn't even enough money to pay off the interest on the damage he (indirectly) caused. The "victims" don't get reimbursed and his life is ruined because of one little fault.

So if we start THIS kind of legislation you can stick something to everybody sending everybody you want to jail which is the perfect ground for a dictatorship to grow on.


In case of our pilot.
He made a mistake by making an inappropriate joke.
Airport security made the mistake of holding him in custody when it was already clear that he had no bomb.

Of course we could stick it to him, we could stick it to them, we could stick it to all of them and make them pay for flight delay, missed appointements, missed hotel reservations, ...
but would you really want a world where you can't make even one little wisecrack without being sued for a million dollars?

[ 08-12-2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Timber Loftis]

Faceman, in the tort suits I mentioned as the appropriate solution to this idea, there is the notion of "foreseeability."

Take negligence, a tort, a typical tort, which has the following elements (all must be met):
1. Duty (e.g. often the "reasonable person" standard of care)
2. Breach of that Duty
3. which is the actual cause of....
4. and proximate cause (also known as legal cause) of...
5. HARM

Now, proximate cause (a/k/a legal cause) is a foreseeability test. Hypo: Guy slams his door on gas attendant's thumb. He will face a likely-successful negligence suit from the attendant, assuming he was not reasonably careful in closing the door. However, the attendant yells, startling a mime across the street, who lets go of a balloon, which floats into the air, popping quite close to the face of Snoopy flying by in a doghouse biplane, startling Snoopy, and causing Snoopy to crash to earth, where his plane unfortunately lands on Reese Witherspoon's little Pomeranian she is walking.

Now, is the man liable to Reese and Charlie Brown for killing their pets? Likely not. While the man was the *actual* cause of the animals' demise, he could not have reasonably foreseen that those actions would occur from his initial irresponsible tortious act of slamming the door. So, the law will not hold him accountable for those things so unlikely they cannot be foreseen. Thus, while actual cause exists, "proximate" or "legal" cause does not.

That'll be $50 for the legal lesson. Test on Friday.

[ 08-12-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Faceman, in the tort suits I mentioned as the appropriate solution to this idea, there is the notion of "foreseeability." Take negligence, a tort, a typical tort, which has the following elements (all must be met): 1. Duty (e.g. often the "reasonable person" standard of care) 2. Breach of that Duty 3. which is the actual cause of.... 4. and proximate cause (also known as legal cause) of... 5. HARM Now, proximate cause (a/k/a legal cause) is a foreseeability test. Hypo: Guy slams his door on gas attendant's thumb. He will face a likely-successful negligence suit from the attendant, assuming he was not reasonably careful in closing the door. However, the attendant yells, startling a mime across the street, who lets go of a balloon, which floats into the air, popping quite close to the face of Snoopy flying by in a doghouse biplane, startling Snoopy, and causing Snoopy to crash to earth, where his plane unfortunately lands on Reese Witherspoon's little Pomeranian she is walking. Now, is the man liable to Reese and Charlie Brown for killing their pets? Likely not. While the man was the *actual* cause of the animals' demise, he could not have reasonably foreseen that those actions would occur from his initial irresponsible tortious act of slamming the door. So, the law will not hold him accountable for those things so unlikely they cannot be foreseen. Thus, while actual cause exists, "proximate" or "legal" cause does not. That'll be $50 for the legal lesson. Test on Friday.

TL, what if that had been a Balrog flying around instead of snoopy? Would htat change anything?

[Timber Loftis]

Whilst Balrogs may (or may not) have wings, if they do have wings, such wings are certainly vestigal organs -- we know this because Balrogs do not fly but rather run and jump. As well, I don't think a doghouse biplane can carry a full-grown Balrog. As well, while a bursting balloon may startle our favorite Schultzian Beagle, such an occurence would likely not startle a Balrog in the least. In fact, since its body is largely made of flame, I would suspect your typcial Balrog is quite familiar with balloons popping when they come near it -- and in fact have found evidence to indicate this is why they are exceedingly adverse to birthday celebrations.

But, all of your erroneous assumptions and interjections into MY hypo aside...

No... it would not change the legal analysis at all.

[Faceman]

Thanks for the law lesson TL but I'm not gonna pay you.
Go ahead and sue me [img]tongue.gif[/img]

This kind of legislature seems ridicolous in my country but from what I get through the news and some TV shows it seemed like in the US anybody can be sued for everything (I'm still not sure wheter the microwaved dog is an urban legend or not) which I found very disturbing.

On the absurd side:
What if the guy was psychic and thus able to foresee all the events? Would he be liable for them?