Can anyone help me with this question please, the full question is: Do you consider that the imposition of strict liability in both criminal and civil law imposes too great a burden on companies and their management in relation to environmental protection?
I couldn't fit it all in the question box, thanks.
2007-01-12 10:26:18 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, they need to take responsibility for the pollution they produce, or take steps to reduce it.
2007-01-12 10:34:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where the situation is inherently dangerous, strict liability is reasonable and often necessary. If a company is handling inherently dangerous chemicals or engaged in inherently dangerous practices and procudures there should be no need to prove intent if an accident occurs.
So, no, strict liability does not impose too great a burden upon companies in relation to environmental protection or any other tort.
2007-01-12 10:42:08 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's really important that companies take environmental protection seriously. Of course accidents happen, but strict liability means they are more likely to do everything they can to prevent them from happening.
2007-01-12 23:15:20 · answer #3 · answered by Phil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes in all kinds of ways. In the us the companies have so many regulations that it is cheaper to move to another country to manufactuer lots of goods. You have to pay so much to get rid of waste of all sorts. All this liability and you just move to mexico and have less restrictions and cheaper labor. After working with lots of spanish the work will not be less superior if the supervision is good.
2007-01-12 10:38:32 · answer #4 · answered by ronnny 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You got it. Just rape the earth and take what is yours. In fact why don't you steal land and give it to your friends. Then ignore genocide and rip up the constituion. Lets all hold hands and but chips in our heads and save lots of money because people will not eat unless they work.
2007-01-12 18:43:53 · answer #5 · answered by Frankly 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No if the criminal shits do something nasty they should not only be liable and fined but the execs resposible arrested... if people are killed thats murder...all counts if due to negligence.
They should clean up their ****, they can afford it, kinda encourages them to do it properly in the first place
2007-01-12 10:37:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋