So, what, you think the answer here is for everyone to get on with their lives and overlook the possible negligence of an employer here?
Supervisor told worker to stop CPR on colleague
- Thread starter JiNX-01
- Start date
So, what, you think the answer here is for everyone to get on with their lives and overlook the possible negligence of an employer here?
Only if it involves Yanks.
I think the answer is to investigate for criminal offences and then the possibility of disciplinary sanctions at work. Not everything should end with someone getting a pot of money.
Is that what I said? No, it wasn't. I was simply pointing out that there is always a law suit. Its what the yanks do. The US has the highest number of law suits filed every year. Its nothing new. I never said that whoever this bloke was shouldn't face a law suit. In fact, I say he should be charged as well.
I said earlier that if this had happened here in Sweden it would be a criminal offense, a variation of Manslaughter gross negligence. In fact I'm pretty sure this would be the case in Britain also. I stand by that. Don't turn this around because of a totally irrelevant statement to the discussion at hand.
Whatever dude, never let a tragedy stop you from taking a tangential swipe at the Yanks.
Lawsuits have a lower burden of proof and thus a better chance of success. Plus, a pot of money is likely to make your family feel a lot better than some pissant manager doing a few months in the klink.
Financial judgments are basically the only way to punish companies, for that matter. If the company did anything wrong, you can't send it to prison--you can only sue it and get a judgment/settlement.
It's unlikely the individual manager will face a lawsuit. You go after the deep pockets.
And let's not pretend there was no value judgment in your statement, "They're yanks, there is always a law suit coming from somewhere." We do have a ton of lawsuits and many are frivolous, but I don't think a lawsuit is unwarranted here. The manager can be found negligent for forbidding resuscitative efforts, and the company can be found negligent for not making its managers aware of policies regarding CPR/first aid. It's not an either/or situation. One may be liable, both may be liable, or neither may be liable.
Yes, how wrong of me to think a high burden of proof before punishing people is a good thing. This is one of my main issues with the whole concept, actually - the criminal courts investigated and found you not guilty, so we'll take another bite at the cherry by suing you. Makes a mockery of the burden of proof in criminal court, when as you point out the punishments can be as harsh. I must say, I disagree entirely. I would sooner see criminal justice done. I really don't get the 'where there's a blame, there's a claim' approach, personally. Handing out large sums of money to victims solve very little outside of cases which are about financial loss. And besides, how much money does a call centre middle manager have to sue for? A hundred bucks?
Well that's a badly broken system then. The criminal courts should be able to fine them.
The burden of proof is lower because the stakes are lower: it's money, not your very freedom.
I already said it makes no sense to sue the manager. If the company was negligent by way of enabling the manager's behavior, then the company can be held liable.
How is that different from a lawsuit beyond who gets the money? The victim(s) and/or their families should get the money rather than the government, don't you think?
Which family members in particular should benefit? What about unmarried partners, close friends, broader family they were close to? What if they were a loner who everyone hated? 'Giving money to the victim's family' is something that sounds lovely but doesn't work well in practice because neither people's families nor the level of 'deserving' compensation are clear cut. The rules of inheritance favour the next of kin but can be superseded by a will because reality isn't that easy - should people also specify in their wills who the settlement should go to if they die in a way you can make money from?
You are making this way more complicated than it has any reason to be.If there is a surviving spouse and/or children, they get the money first.
If not, it goes to surviving parents.
If not, it goes to surviving siblings.
Repeat on down the line until you are getting into cousin territory, I guess?
There is also the will to consider, if the person had one. Any judgment received on their behalf would be part of the estate and thus be distributed per the will.
If you run into some weird situation where there are no relatives, no will, and no one designated to receive the estate, then I guess it goes wherever estates go in circumstances not involving lawsuit judgments.
There is nothing all that special about the fact that there's lawsuit money involved. It's just money and is just like any other part of a deceased's estate.
Other than the fact the whole point was to compensate the victim's family for a loss - completely different to redistributing someone's possessions after they die. The problem is usually not having no relatives, the problem is having too many. And why only relatives deserve compensation? Do only they feel the loss?
You say I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be. I say I'm making it reality. The equation goes from establishing justice to trying to work out who has suffered what loss and giving them boatloads of money to offset it.
Other than the fact the whole point was to compensate the victim's family for a loss - completely different to redistributing someone's possessions after they die. The problem is usually not having no relatives, the problem is having too many. And why only relatives deserve compensation? Do only they feel the loss?
You say I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be. I say I'm making it reality. The equation goes from establishing justice to trying to work out who has suffered what loss and giving them boatloads of money to offset it.
You have to think of it this way: the victim was harmed. Were they still alive, the victim would be entitled to that money. Since they are not, their designated heirs get it. I don't dispute that wills and probate and inheritance can be really messy, but to me that's a totally separate issue that has nothing to do with whether lawsuit judgments payable to private individuals are a good idea.
Other than the fact the whole point was to compensate the victim's family for a loss - completely different to redistributing someone's possessions after they die. The problem is usually not having no relatives, the problem is having too many. And why only relatives deserve compensation? Do only they feel the loss?
You say I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be. I say I'm making it reality. The equation goes from establishing justice to trying to work out who has suffered what loss and giving them boatloads of money to offset it.
You have to think of it this way: the victim was harmed. Were they still alive, the victim would be entitled to that money. Since they are not, their designated heirs get it. I don't dispute that wills and probate and inheritance can be really messy, but to me that's a totally separate issue that has nothing to do with whether lawsuit judgments payable to private individuals are a good idea.
In death cases, which is what we're talking about, it certainly does. But I also fall out with suing people when the victim is still alive, too. If criminal conduct has occurred, it should be dealt with criminally - if part of this sentence is to make payments to the victim, such as to cover hospital bills, then so be it, but I disagree with the idea of a parallel civil claim to try and get a big payout as well/instead. The civil compensation option should, in my opinion, be for recouping financial loss from things like breach of contract, copyright disputes, or unfair dismissal. The damages should be proven sums, too, not big payouts for 'emotional distress' and so forth. The problems that accompany a societal obsession with litigation outweigh, in my opinion, any gain for victims.
Personally, I would not disagree with legally-mandated caps on punitive damages, to prevent claims from going into the millions when it is not necessary. If compensatory damages go into the millions, however...whoever made their bed on that one should have to lie in it. I do not object to the concept of punitive damages as a whole, though. The object of it should be, however, to hurt the bottom line of whatever company committed the offense so that they and others think twice before doing it again, rather than it being a game for lawyers and people with frivolous lawsuits to win a payout disproportional to the offense.
I might, however, suggest you check out this article about how punitive damages really are in the US. The percent of cases resulting in a punitive payout and the amount that is paid out might surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#United_States
I think that caps on punitive damages for each type of offense, combined with a law that required the losing party--or anyone dismissed in summary judgment for bringing a frivolous lawsuit--to pay the court costs for both parties (the goal being to eliminate frivolous lawsuits), would clean up a lot of the problems that we have in the US. But I do not agree with eliminating punitive damages as a whole, or denying people recourse through the civil court system.
I might, however, suggest you check out this article about how punitive damages really are in the US. The percent of cases resulting in a punitive payout and the amount that is paid out might surprise you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#United_States
I think that caps on punitive damages for each type of offense, combined with a law that required the losing party--or anyone dismissed in summary judgment for bringing a frivolous lawsuit--to pay the court costs for both parties (the goal being to eliminate frivolous lawsuits), would clean up a lot of the problems that we have in the US. But I do not agree with eliminating punitive damages as a whole, or denying people recourse through the civil court system.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I do think an acquittal at the criminal level should weigh heavily if similar civil charges are brought, but I don't like the idea of people being forbidden from holding companies legally (and financially) accountable for their wrongdoings.
i think i would've replied "fuck you, i quit" and carried on. providing i knew CPR, of course...
Technically, respondeat superior doesn't require the company to be negligent in any way. They're just simply responsible for their boss's actions. Cultcross, has the UK abolished vicarious liability? That's where we got all the seemingly nonsensical common law rules.
If there is a surviving spouse and/or children, they get the money first.
If not, it goes to surviving parents.
If not, it goes to surviving siblings.
Repeat on down the line until you are getting into cousin territory, I guess?
Actually, he has a fair point. Wrongful death suits are supposed to be for compensating others for the loss that person would have provided. It's why the cynical torts lawyer thinks its better for a defendant if he kills someone than maims them. It's also better if he kills a child than a functioning adult.
That being said, I did think of a tort lawsuit when I saw this. If she provided for others, they are entitled to receive compensation for what she would have earned. Plus, I don't have a problem compensating for the loss of a loved one even if you can't literally equate sorrow with a value. I don't think it would apply in this case. In addition, I don't think punitive damages are unreasonable. I still view lawsuits as a substitute for private vengeance. Rather than blood feuds, we let a court sort it out. Of course, the original justification rose out a Wergeld (literally decide how much the person was worth and pay for that amount). It seems less morbid now that we are focusing more on financial damages. Punitive damages are the exception, not the norm, so it usually is about the money they would have provided.
My thought has always been that the civil courts should be for redressing provable loss caused by non-criminal fault - where one party has lost out because of some failing of the other, like not paying what they owe, breaching a contract, etc. A matter of arbitrating differences between people if you like. I don't feel they should be used for punishment; with their lower standard of proof, it always seems to me to be a run-around to avoid the higher standards of the criminal courts. If someone or a company should be punished for their actions in addition to redressing any specific loss caused, in my mind that is the remit of the criminal justice system, not a lawsuit. I am well aware, however, that the US legal system disagrees! Here punitive damages exist as well, but are much much rarer and can only be given under some pretty specific and tight circumstances.
I'm no expert on English tort law, but I know that he have vicarious liability to at least some extent. For example, if a case involves the actions of police employees, the case is cited as The Chief Constable of Whatever Police vs. John A Smith.
While they may be routinely granted, they are also routinely struck down as excessive. I think they're also the exception not the rule and generally only exist for repeated misconduct that has gone undeterred. I fully expect some kind of statutory cap to be imposed at some point as the call for "tort reform" wears down those who want to deter misconduct and provide remedy for plaintiffs. At least a cap on punitive damage would be better than one on non-economic damages.
If potential lawsuits such as this were routinely handled as criminal, not civil, cases, nothing would ever get done. Who-all do you think would be prosecuting these -- the assistant state's attorneys/assistant district attorneys who are already underpaid and inundated with every violation of criminal law as it is? By requiring criminal prosecution, you'd be saying that the state should step in every time, probably at least doubling or maybe tripling the prosecuting offices' case loads. The backlogs would be years and years.
Similar threads
