In one quick stroke, a generation’s worth of work is gone. In the length of time it took to sign a name, the Supreme Court changed our entire justice system.
We have two areas, the criminal system and the civil system. The problem is that some acts are not illegal and cannot be prosecuted in the criminal system (sending people to jail) and therefore must be prosecuted in the civil system (costing them lots of money). There are problems in which the affects take decades to determine. Cases such as the lawsuit again big tobacco prove that. Vioxx is beginning to prove that again. We confuse the two parts of the system. We confuse legality with responsibility: just because something is not illegal, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held responsible for the repercussions. This is the basis for class action lawsuits.
A class action is not the same as suing a company for your own mistake as certain high profile cases against prominent fast food restaurants have proven. These are cases where a bunch of people are hurt because of an individual’s or corporation’s negligence or deliberate action. In fact, it is the only way we have to get these wealthy non-persons to pay for immoral actions. Knowingly promoting a deadly and dangerous drug and bribing the FDA to pass it caused Merck to deal with Vioxx. The market does not regulate itself—not when it comes to negligence and deliberate deception. That’s where class action suits make those responsible have to pay for their actions.
The Supreme Court made a recent decision that changes the very nature of the system. As detailed in this article, it says that
“the Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages should not exceed actual damages.”
This, of course, is limited to the current understanding of “actual damages”, which will no doubt be purely financial: medical costs and potentially lost wages, but would not deal with many of the other costs.
This particular case dealt with a fishing town devastated by the Exxon oil spill from 20 years ago that had yet to be resolved in court. The spill devastated the primary industry of the town for years, preventing many from working any job.
“Imagine if the primary industry in your community was wiped out by the actions of another. If you owned a business that depended on that primary industry, wouldn't you feel entitled to a damage claim as well?”
I’ll take up the challenge! Imagine what would have happened in the 1980s or 90’s if the auto industry stopped suddenly because one company ruined steel—for several years—making it impossible for any manufacturer to make new cars in Michigan. Or imagine what would happen to any of our rural communities if a pesticide manufacturer dumped millions of gallons of pesticides on all of the fields of several counties. The level of pesticides would not only kill all of the plants, but would make the land unusable for years.
The environmental and economic impact of the oil spill are directly related—but only the economic one matters to this court.
And according to the court, only the economic interests of a company matter. Your future well being, health, and pursuit of happiness are not important. The level of negligence is stopped at “accident”—meaning there could be nothing worse because of this ruling. Imagine a line graph. At one end is accident and at the other sadism:
Accident--------Unintentional Mistake---------Direct Consequence---------Sadistic Intent
According to the Supreme Court, the intention is irrelevant, so all punishments (in the form of damages) stop at the beginning: accident.
In other words, I could do incredibly malevolent things to our environment, people, and to cute bunny rabbits, but if the only financial damages that can be proven are the breaking of a coffee mug, then all of the irreparable harm I do will cost me $5-10.
Or think about it from the side of Exxon, which in the current climate is taking home record profits, mind you, messed up the environment, had the federal government bail it out for cleanup, was negligent in the disaster (the captain was drunk, remember?) devastated communities, and destroyed countless lives, but the damages that can be leveled against it amount to clean up costs. They have gone into a Cracker Barrell, thrown knick knacks through windows and all they are held accountable for is the cost of the window and the crap broken.
What is to stop a drug company from knowingly harming people (hello, Merck; the next Vioxx is calling!), when the only damages that they will have to pay out are hospital bills? For them $200,000 is an investment!
Damages awarded are the primary means of holding corporations accountable in an era of reduced consumer safety. When our laws are lax and our enforcement underfunded, we are praying that the products we buy are safe. When they aren’t we have to sue the company for excessive damages because there is no other legal repercussion.
How does it feel to have a Supreme Court that not only cares for a company’s well being more than yours, but is actively protecting their interests at the cost of your own?
No comments:
Post a Comment