See You in Court!

[Charles Schwartz <cschwart@stern.nyu.edu>]

Tom Haapanen wrote:

>. . . There's a guy who makes his living running a gas station, and he may
be doing the best damn job he >can.  And just maybe he was doing things
right.  Just maybe the inspectors and manufacturers are >doing things by
the book.  

How do we determine that?  Throw the I-Ching?  Use a Ouija board?

>Accidents happen.  Perfectly good planes fall out of the sky.  

I don't think so.  That is why we investigate plane crashes.

>Perfectly good  pieces of equipment fail on cars.  

But imperfect parts fail much more frequently.

>Products and systems are engineered to meet standards, but nature and
materials aren't perfectly predictable -- for example, a flaw in the rubber
could have caused the hose to burst.

First of all the hose is not plain rubber, but a processed part made of
compound materials.  Secondly, because of possible failure, the hose should
have been inspected more carefully.

>I am just decrying the tendency to publicly convict and crucify them
automatically without any evidence, and to call in the lawyers.
  
No one has convicted anyone. That is why we have courts and the legal
process to decide these things in our country.  If no one is  liable, then
there will be no damages.  Who would you rather have us call in?
Advertising executives?  Spin Doctors?

If there is a design flaw or a flaw in the way gas attendants are trained,
then that will be determined by a trial.  No matter how imperfect, I
treasure our jury system and would never want to trade it for a system
where we must let a tribunal of politically selected judges decide our fate.  

It appears to me that people who rant against lawyers and the courts would
rather let big industrialists get away with murder than face the rule of law.

Charles Schwartz